Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97 - Traffic Impact Study - Safeway (Proposed Oak Street Location) IrRA[F [FUC ACC ESSU OL07Y 87UDV WALMAU v • ■ lVr SAFEWAY STORE UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IN c DEVELOPMENT and �uln o STREET VACATION ST"� nIIIIIIIiiiiiIIII I I A prepared for SAFEWAY STORES, INC. prepared by %Tlc, VIN & ASSOCIATES RAM TransWadon i CM1 Enpin"ro •C �� 'Royt� S:cL Marvin & Associates J^� Trafo, Transportation & 0MI Engineers Craig Brawner, P.E. _ __ City Engineer APR 1 5 P.O. Box 640 997, Bozeman, MT 59771-0640 April 14, 1997 Re: Bozeman Safeway Traffic Access Study Dear Craig: This letter concerns our phone conversation today, with regard to the above noted study. At that time you had not completely finished reviewing the report,but you indicated that you felt a status quo type analysis would be desirable, to indicate what alternate impacts would occur in the future. This alternate would include leaving North 5d'where it exists, north of Oak, and extending North 5'to the south as planned. The result would force Safeway to build further east and approximately 92,000 square feet of vacant land, where the Safeway parking lot is now proposed, west of N 5d, would remain open for future development. I had indicated that future volumes could be determined by redistributing volumes shown in Figure 12., of the report, but you would also need to add traffic generated by the additional vacant land. Rather than have you try to calculate this information, we have completed another analysis for this option. We assumed that 25% of the 92,000 S.F. of vacant and could be occupied by buildings. We also assumed that a 4,000 S.F. fast food restaurant and a 19,000 S.F. speciality retail building could be developed which would generate approximately 240 vehicles during the peak hour (120 in and 120 out). The attached Supplementary Figure A. indicates the peak hour traffic assignment for that development, based on s4nilar trip distribution as Safeway's. We redistributed Figure 12. traffic and added it to the new development traffic assignment to arrive at year 2017 peak PM hour traffic volumes at Oak and North 5`h. The attached Supplementary Figure B. indicates those volumes and volumes at a new intersection with North 5' which would provide access to Safeway and the new development land west of North 5th. Also shown in that figure are volumes that would occur at the existing Wa1Mart approach to North 51h. From these volumes,we performed capacity calculations(attached). Attached Supplementary Figure C. is a summary of level-of-service delay and maximum vehicle queues on critical approaches. If you compare this figure to either Figures 13. Or 16., in our report, you will note that this alternate would provide much worse levels of service, increased delay and would need more vehicle storage distance on the street system and within the development site. Without performing an additional warrant 1127 Alderson Avenue ■ Suite#204 0 Billings, MT 59102 ■ (406)248-5088 ■ Fax (406) 252-1157 .p study, I would venture to say that both intersections with North 5'h (Oak Street and the Safeway approach)would need to be signalized. In addition, development of back-to-back left turn bays on North 5'h would require an intersection separation distance of approximately 300' and the existing distance between Oak and the WalMart approach is only 470 feet. Thus, even if Safeway moved to the east and North 5' remained as it exists, access to the Safeway lot from North 5`h would be difficult to achieve due to geometric constrictions. In summary, our analysis of the alternate currently favored by City of Bozeman staff indicates that significantly more impacts would be a result of this option, as future development occurs. For this reason, we continue to support the recommendations made in our original traffic access report. If you have additional questions or concerns, feel free to call us at any time. Respectfully Submitted, Robert R. Marvin, P.E. cc: Gary Bernardo w/attaph WALMART BAXTER —� 92000 S.F. Future Development Area Peak PM Hour 120 In & 120 Out 0 20 --.-'4 QUALITY INN PROPOSED 1 O0 I S FEWAY STORE STORE 120 67 7 26 OAK STREET 95 � � 20 uj a Supplementary Figure A. Year 2017 Street System t M Site Traffic Assignment'For Possible Development 5 z Between N. 5th & Quality Inn WALMART BAXTER 129 27 �1180 lu � 3 157, - 109 92000 S.F. 270 Future 1 2 Development Area ,, 30- 72 DUALITY INN 20-4- -f—20 PROPOSED 210 SAFEWAY 100---� STORE �I 20 25 1CA 409 15 156 365 142 OAK STREET 180 93 10 � � 10 Supplementary Figure B. Year 2017 Street System a Traffic Assignment Full Development 15 32 10 With N. 5th Alignment As Per City Plan z WALMART - - _ --- -- - _ MjBARTER -____, A � 1 Delay=7.6 spv tl l 92000 S.F. Future A Delay=31.1 sp Development Area C �— B QUALITY INN C B PROPOSED SAFEWAY - A E STORE Max Q=5 veh A Max Q=5 veh B C F Delay=18.7 spv OAK STREET A A Supplementary Figure C. Year 2017 Street System a Capacity & LOS Analysis D C � With N. 5th Alignment As Per City Plan C z MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.0b 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:26 PM OAK STREET&N 5TH YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg Y=YIELD CONTROL RESTRICTED SIGHT DISTANCE X X Grade= NO SHARED LANES 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S S NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE � � NO RIGHT TURN LANE E— Grade= 0%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE EXCLUSIVE LEFT NE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. — (MULTI LANES) LA Major Left Leg Grade= 0% NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. LARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg left thru right left thru right left thru right I left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 365 180 10 10 93 142 15 32 10 156 15 409 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 365 180 10 10 93 142 15 32 10 , 156 15 409 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 402 180 10 1 11 93 142 17 35 11 172 17 450 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) AN SATURATION VOLUME I 4 1 5 1 7 0 7 2 142 120 y <— 93 180 Major Right Leg 11 - 402 ---- Major Left Leg 800 180 200 10 T 1 3 1 NOTE: 7 5 1 Saturation Volumes are used to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major Street Left Turn Lane Minor Bottom Le is shared. g MARVIN&ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:26 PM OAK STREET&N 5TH YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 95 vph 118 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 6.7 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 1233 pcph 1161 pcph Movement Capacity: 1233 pcph 1161 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 99.1 % 61.2% LEFT TURN FROM. Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 190 vph 235 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 seconds 5.6 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1348 pcph 1274 pcph Movement Capacity: 1348 pcph 1274 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 99.2% 68.4% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 795 vph 729 vph Critical Gap: 6.8 seconds 7.8 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 350 pcph 314 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementei.68 0.68 Movement Capacity: 237 pcph 213 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 85.3% 92.0% LEFT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg , Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 661 vph 735 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 seconds 7.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 379 pcph 338 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.62 0.58 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(0.'71 0.67 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovementEO.43 0.66 Movement Capacity: 164 pcph 224 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Minor Bottom Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 17 164_ - 24.4 D - Long Delays Ave Delay Through 35 237 294 14.5 C - Normal Delays 17.2 sec, XL-Right Turn 11 1233 294 14.5 C --Normal Delays Shared Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 172 224 - 54.6 F -Severe Congestion Ave Delay Through 17 213 - 18.3 C - Normal Delays 18.7 sec Right Turn 450 1161 - 5.1 B-Short Delays Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay Major Left Leg 402 1274 4.1 A- Little Delay 2.8 sec. Major Right Leg 11 1348 2.7 A- Little Delay 1 0.1 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 9.6 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:26 PM OAK STREET&N 5TH YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. All Movements use Exclusive Lanes 2 1 5 Major Right Leg Major Leff Leg 1 1 Right and Through Movements Share a Lane Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:29 PM INTERNAL INTERSECTION WITH NORTH 5TH YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=25 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg —� Y=YIELD CONTROL RESTRICTED SIGHT DISTANCE X X : Grade= NO SHARED LANES 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S i S , NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE _NO RIGHT TURN LANE E— Grade= 0%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. (2 LANES) Major Left Leg Grade= 0% —� NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. LARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg left thru right 1 left thru right left thru right left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 120 164 255 29 270 10 210 20 72 30 20 100 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 120 164 255 29 270 10 210 20 72 30 20 100 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 132 164 255 32 270 10 231 22 79 33 22 110 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) AND SATURATION VOLUME ' 1 1 2 3 0 2 3 F-- 270 E031 Major Right Leg 32 132 Major Left Leg F8-0-01 164 —� 200 255 2 2 7 NOTE: 3 2 9 Saturation Volumes are used 1 to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major Street Left Turn Lane Minor Bottom Le is shared. g MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:29 PM INTERNAL INTERSECTION WITH NORTH 5TH YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 292 vph 275 vph Critical Gap: 5.3 seconds 6.3 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 1002 pcph 945 pcph Movement Capacity: 1002 pcph 945 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 92.1 % 88.4% LEFT TURN FROM: Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 419 vph 280 vph Critical Gap: 4.9 seconds 4.9 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1095 pcph 1271 pcph Movement Capacity: 1095 pcph 1271 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 97.1 % 89.6% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 721 vph 843 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 6.7 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 485 pcph 334 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovemenW.87 0.87 Movement Capacity: 422 pcph 291 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 94.8% 92.4% LEFT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 776 vph 762 vph Critical Gap: 6.2 seconds 6.2 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 402 pcph 409 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.80 0.82 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(0'05 0.87 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementsi.75 0.80 Movement Capacity: 301 pcph 326 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Bottom Leg Volume CapacityCpacitty DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 231 a 301 - 42.3 E -Very Long Delays Ave Delay Through 22 422 771 5.4 B -Short Delays 31.1 sect Right Turn 79 1002 771 5.4 B - Short Delays Shared Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 33 326 - 12.3 C - Normal Delays Ave Delay Through 22 291 - 13.4 C -Normal Delays 7.1 sec. Right Turn 110 945 - 4.3 A-Little Delay Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity DELAY L Level Of Service Ave Delay Major Left Leg 132 1271 3.2 A - Little Delay 0.8 sec. Major Right Leg _ 32 1095 3A � A- Little Delay 1 0.3 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 8.8 seconds MARVIN&ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:29 PM • INTERNAL INTERSECTION WITH NORTH 5TH YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. All Movements use Exclusive Lanes 1 1 1 Major Right Leg Major Leff Leg 5 1 Right and Through Movements Share a Lane Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS April 14, 1997 03:31 PM N 5TH &BAXTER INTESECTION YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC-NO STREET VACATION ALTERNATE INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=25 MPH SATURATION VOLUMES Grade= 0% E— 129 1800 (2 LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 30 Major Left Leg EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE Major Left Leg 4 Grade= 0% Major Right Leg 109 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 157 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft 1 0 Grade= 9 NOTE: STOP OR YIELD SIGN 0% NO SHARED LANES SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 8 Saturation Volumes are use LARGE to clity of alculate States lwhen th POPULATION Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru I right left thru left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 109 157 27 129 180 0 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 109 157 27 129 180 0 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 109 157 30 129 1 198 0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 344 vph ;188 vph Critical Gap: 6.2 seconds 5.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 689 pcph 1124 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movement%:98 - Movement Capacity: 673 pcph 1124 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right Lqg Conflicting Flow: 266 vph Critical Gap: 4.9 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1290 pcph Movement Capacity: 1290 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 97.7% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Movements Shared Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left From Minor Bottom Leg 198 673 - 7.6 B - Short Delays Ave Delay 7.6 sec. Right From Minor Bottom Leg 0 1124 3.2 A - Little Delay Left From Major Right Leg _L 30 1290 2.9 A - Little Delay [0.5 sec. J Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 2.9 seconds 1rac /V S o Oak �'l +t#-sfit• 3 - vr LA) CID St u)V" vim- (4..r �r . l 3 cam dou I t v e uh 4 H^-o-"A S va c C4,_4 cc : �l'f+llril"{ZI' :•:,.7r;'���A-.Y.^K.7'� r.'Y+i��'s�.�WY'1�,'M'•_. `- _" - _ ,rt •• .,f�' - b;r-� .. •. �,;, _ .. •�- � w��`i1� 6.CiJ':.rW='"=T f• 1 t + r l c � � v � .n � 4 f fF Mai r �/��1i►� it • ,Nr TRAFFIC ACCE551 BI LITY STUDY SAFEWAY STORE DEVELOPMENT and STREET VACATION MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT REF.#109 BOZEMAN, MONTANA PREPARED FOR SAFEWAY STORES, INC. PREPARED BY � 'RO RT v wce MARVIN & ASSOCIATES ;• ��,�, �E�.: 1127 Alderson Ave.#204 •,,'''����VA 1. E �,,.�. Billings, MT 59102 ►►►►►► March 24, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION &DESCRIPTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets 5 Traffic Volumes 7 Traffic Operations 9 TRIP GENERATION 9 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 11 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 15 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Volumes 22 Capacity Impacts 25 On-Street Storage 28 Pedestrians 28 IMPACT MITIGATION 30 RECOMMENDATIONS 36 APPENDIX"A"Traffic Volumes 39 APPENDIX"B"Trip Generation Reference 40 APPENDIX"C" Capacity Calculations 41 APPENDIX"D" Pedestrian Gap Prediction Model 42 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Site Location Map 2 Figure 2. Basic Site Layout 4 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Counts&AWT 2/20/97 8 Figure 4. Short Term Trip Distribution 13 Figure 5. Year 2017 Trip Distribution 14 Figure 6. Initial Development Traffic Assignment 16 Figure 7. Short Term Site Traffic Assignment 18 Figure 8. Year 2017 Street System Site Traffic Assignment 19 Figure 9. Short Term Redistribution of WalMart Traffic 20 Figure 10. Year 2017 Street System Redistribution of WalMart Traffic 21 Figure 11. Short Term Existing Plus site &WalMart Traffic 23 Figure 12. Year 2017 Traffic Full Development 24 Figure 13. Capacity Impacts Various Time Periods 26 Figure 14. Maximum On-Street Vehicle Storage Thru The Year 2017 29 Figure 15. Future Street System Improvements &Traffic Control Concepts 31 Figure 16. Alternate Oak Street Access Control 33 Figure 17. Recommended Improvements Prior To Development Opening 37 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Estimate of Trip Generation For Safeway 9 Table 2. Safeway-Trip Mode,Trip Type&Net Vehicular Trips 11 Bozeman Safeway Development & Street Vacation Traffic Accessibility Study INTRODUCTION This report summarizes existing conditions,trip generation characteristics,trip distribution,traffic assignment, and impact analysis within the structure of a traffic accessibility study. The study was completed for a proposed development to be located in the northeast corner of Oak Street and North 51h Avenue in Bozeman, Montana(see Figure 1). The study was prepared for Safeway Stores,who intend to construct a supermarket within a minor subdivision(ref. 109). Bernardo Wills Architects are handling the building design and site layout concepts for this development Because of a request to vacate the portion of North 5"Avenue, north of Oak Street and the potential for traffic impacts on the surrounding street system, a traffic accessibility study is required prior to approval of street vacation, major site plan approval, and building permit approvals. Preliminary Site Plan 32, dated 11-5-96, prepared by BWA Architects, has been submitted and reviewed by the Development Review Committee(DRC). A memo from Craig Brawner, City Engineer to James Wysocki, City Manager,dated 12-13-96,summarized early staff findings with regard to the site layout Several potential traffic problems were addressed in that memo. Subsequent to that time Marvin &Associates was retained to provide input in site development and to provide a traffic study relative to potential traffic impacts that may be created by this development Having reviewed the site plan and City concerns, Marvin &Associates offered several alternatives which would reduce or eliminate concerns expressed by the City. The owner expressed a strong desire to develop one of the alternative and Preliminary Site Plan 2C, dated 2-11-97, was submitted for informal review by the DRC. Subsequent to that submittal traffic data was collected and analysis was completed, which is 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. In addition, the study provides a specific evaluation of planned street system changes and redirection of existing traffic created by those plans. Because of the existence of Wal Mart, north of the site, and the need to accommodate their access traffic, study of the Safeway site also needed to determine if adjacent accesses would be impacted. 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 S I 1 # I 1 - - - - - MrNwrIM la I � J L - - - - - - - \ ` Extension of Oak ST i In Progress , Existing I WalMart - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 04>k - - - - - - - p , t /Proposed AlignmentSL Proposed ev , Store AN*WO Property I x - - - - - - - - ' future a Alignment Jog ❑ I , - -I MD�n 0. ❑ T I ❑ T.rtma Aw. I I I - - - - ❑❑ 1"SL ❑ N. 5th Stree g [LIU❑ 4111 E F W.DUNEll❑❑❑0 FH, 9 F� H El El T E ❑❑❑❑C W.R%h 9L 8L 41 El E�H Fr ❑❑�❑ n ° [D❑❑❑❑ ❑E❑ �Z❑0❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ I I nr-, r,n ran M F 7�1 �l❑❑ Figure 1. Site Location Map Page 2 SITE LOCATION do DESCRIPTION The proposed development would be located in the southeast corner of a proposed intersection with Oak Street and North 5'Avenue (see Figure 1). The subdivision now contains: a Walmart Store,just north of the site;a Quality Inn,just west of the site; a service station, north of the Quality Inn; and approximately 1.1 acres of vacant ground for future development The proposed Safeway store would be built on a 263,000 square footlot,including all of North 5" Avenue and a portion of Baxter Lane,within proposed Lot 2 boundaries. BWA has submitted the site plan detailing specifics of the layout(Preliminary Site Plan 2C, dated 2-11-97). Figure 2., on the following page, represents the basic site layout used within this traffic analysis. Access to the proposed site would be from several different directions. The major access would be from Oak Street across from the future alignment of North 5". This would be the most direct access to the store frontage, where the majority of customers would first seek parking spaces. An additional access from Oak Street is proposed on the west end of the Safeway parking lot This would be a major internal circulation road which would also accommodate a high percentage of WalMart egress traffic. That road would also serve as access to the Quality Inn, whose existing access to Oak Street (west of the proposed internal road) would be terminated. A third access to Oak Street would be located east of the North 5" access, on the east side of the proposed building. This access would only serve Safeway and K-Mart loading dock facilities. The site plan is dependant upon vacation of the existing North 51h Avenue, a street that currently bisects proposed Lot 2 property. N. 5"currently turns to the west at the existing access to WalMart and becomes Baxter Lane.The site plan could perpetuate Baxter Lane,from an intersection with the proposed north-south internal road to North r Avenue (approximately 550'west), if desired by the City. The proposed Safeway lot could also be accessed from Baxter at the internal intersection. A divider island between the WalMart and Safeway stores would allow access from Safeway directly into WalMart, but would divert WalMart traffic to Baxter Lane. From that point, WalMart traffic could either proceed west to North 7th or south,to Oak Street The proposed system of internal roads and accesses is primarily due to two existing and future street system conditions: 1. At some time in the past, it was decided that a traffic signal could not be installed at Baxter and North 7th due to its proximity to Oak Street(520'), a future east-west arterial. Thus, access to WalMart Page 3 �j G 3 (n w VJ Q 3 O to � m w �' E am zc w Or c m m O �Q a LL-- -- -- - A A' Hlg'N w 19 A r r b b i j aam — O am z z m ° I I N b I I W m I � •m i LL I IU6 1 i I I '3AV HlL H1HON Page 4 became convoluted, causing major ingress on Baxter and major egress on Oak Street. Oak Street was then signalized as a part of WalMart development improvements. 2. Because of capacity and safety concerns at the North 7`h- Baxter intersection,the City of Bozeman and MDT have plans to install islands which would only allow right turns from Baxter to North 71h. This will radically improve capacity at that intersection, but will redirect a significant portion of WalMart access traffic. The above noted past and future events essentially dictates all future development access within the subdivision. The proposed site layout is considered the best of many that were considered,within the confines of imposed restrictions: At this date, development of the proposed layout is dependent upon vacation of North 511 Avenue, north of Oak Street DRC has stated many concerns regarding this vacation and this study attempts to address these concerns by determining quantifiable impacts. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets Adjacent and potentially impacted public streets are:Oak Street, North r Avenue, North 511 Avenue and Baxter Lane. In addition,internal subdivision roads,internal intersections and intersections with public streets were considered as having potential for impacts. North 7'Avenue is a 84' BC-BC wide, north-south principal arterial street which has four thru lanes, a center median with left turn lanes and 10 foot parking lanes. North 7th crosses over Interstate 90, north of Baxter Lane at a diamond interchange. North 711 Avenue was apart of the original primary highway system through Bozeman and was one of two accesses to Interstate 90. Approximately two years ago, North 19`h Avenue was constructed from Durston Road to 1-90 and a new interchange with 1-90 was constructed. The new interchange has helped lessen traffic demand on North 7", but system wide volume increases have replaced a significant amount of the displaced demand. Page 5 Oak Street is an east-west arterial street with continuity from the alignment of North 5"to a point just west of North 7"'. Its intersection with North 7" is currently under construction and within the next year it is expected that the intersection area will be completed and Oak will be improved from North 7" to North 19". This connection will provide an alternative east-west route and relieve some traffic demand on Main Street and Durston Road. Oak Street, east of North 71h.will transition from two approach lanes and one departure lane at North 7"'to the existing 24'wide,two-lane section that exists. A future section on Oak Street, east of North 71h has not yet been designed. North 5"'Avenue(see Figure 1.) is a local street which is disjointed from its southern terminus, near the MSU Campus to its northern terminus at Baxter Lane. North 5"'doesn't currently exist, south of Oak Street, between Oak and Hemlock. At Hemlock,North 5"'right-of-way is disjointed and its street alignment is offset 190'to the west, where it continues south to Babcock Street South of Hemlock, it passes behind commercially development fronting on North 7"and through residential development, including an elementary school,just north of Peach Street A 1992 traffic safety study by Marvin&Associates indicted that there were a minimum of four accident clusters at intersectionalong North 5`h. The primary reason for these clusters was higher than normal traffic volumes on a narrow residential street Higher traffic volumes on North 5'h was found to be attributable to arterial spillover from North 7`h which used North 5th as a parallel route. Baxter Lane is a primary east-west arterial route acting as an 1-90 south frontage road. It begins at areas west of Bozeman and had terminated at North 7`h Avenue, until it was constructed east of North 7"to serve as a major ingress street to WalMart. That construction tied Baxter into North 5`h using a large radius curve and created what could be considered a continuous route from western regions of the urban area to a north-south local street Baxter serves a large commercial area adjacent to North 7", on the west side. This area consists mostly of motels, convenience stores and a fast food restaurant High traffic demand and relatively uncontrolled access at the intersection of Baxter and North 7t'has created safety and efficiency problems. The City of Bozeman and MDT plan to modify this intersection to eliminate left turns and cross traffic at this intersection. This would be done by constructing traffic islands which would only allow right turns from Baxter to North 7"'Avenue. It is expected that these improvements will be made prior to development of the proposed Safeway store. Page 6 Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes from previous studies were used to determine daily variations in traffic. Also, new counts on North 7", Oak Street and Baxter were taken in February 1997,for use in this study. Appendix°A" contains summaries of all 24 hour automatic recording counts on these streets. Turning movement counts were taken at six intersections during the peak PM hour, between 4 and 6 PM on February 20, 1997. Figure 3.illustrates these counts along with factored Average Weekday Traffic (AWT)calculated from peak hour and automatic recording counts. At the time of the counts, Oak Street was in bad condition with deep potholes that significantly slowed traffic. During the counting periods, a sampling was taken of traffic entering and exiting the K Mart lot at its northeast approach. It was determined that approximately 85%of all traffic between K Mart and Oak Street did not stop at K Mart. North 7"traffic was using the K Mart lot to avoid potholes on Oak near its intersection with North 7". Thus, approximately 1,200 vehicles per day were avoiding the western portion of Oak and thattraffic is labeled as temporary in Figure 3. Approximately 1,100 AWT braved what appeared to be a mine field and utilized Oak Street to access WalMart Adjustments to traffic volume projections within this study were made to allow for this misdirection of traffic demand. Volume counts at the intersection of Baxter and North 7"Avenue illustrate an existing problem with regard to the street system layout and access to WalMart. Volumes at that intersection are at signal warrant levels,with long queues forming on Baxter, east of North 7". These queues block access to the southwest WalMart approach. Delays would be substantial,except that gaps created by the signal at Oak periodically allow traffic to access North 7th and temporarily clear the long queues. Since travel time and subsequent stopped delay on the Oak Street access, between WalMart and North r,is 30 seconds longer, drivers tend to tolerate at least a that amount of delay at the Baxter intersection. Thus,approximately 40%of southbound WalMart traffic uses Baxter for egress movements. In addition to street system traffic volumes,these counts were used to determine WalMart traffic volume splits and directional distribution. Since planned improvements would be redirecting this traffic within the subdivision and on the street system,those counts were critical. From this data, it was determined that WalMart generates 645 vehicles in the peak PM hour(309 in and 336 out). On the average weekday it generates 6,428 vehicles for an average rate of 53.12 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet(SF) area. ITE trip generation rates (Appendix B) average 57.06 or approximately 6%more. However,the Bozeman WalMart generates 5.33 vehicle trips per 1,000 SF,while the ITE average rate is 4.35 or 22% lower during the peak PM hour. Page 7 zzloo 5-6 PM 50�69 WalMart Traffic i Peak PM: 19� �--135 309 In WALMART ui 5 �— 1 336 Out l Q 75 XT 81 AWT: x r 3214In I� k 142 165 3214 Out x 798 cc O Z 172 38 4300 I r � - - 218� � 1 �► 3 ��4 24, r--33 BAXTER r r� 1B 1 16 393�� 95 CC r �6 2 GAS 4-5PM STATION 25300 4 4 QUALITY INN 3 3-y 1 u7 PROPOSED 8 0 24—m- +_72 > SAFEWAY 4-5PM + 2 61 = STORE 13 1 2300 29—► 88 14 42 Z 8 3 + I 1 134 6 I 0 1 OAK STREET 69 �a 2300 1100 � it (Temporary) /1200 I 4--5PM (Temporary) I 4 80931 K-MART 24200 8 15 � 1 2 15 85 r 23 18 1007 Figure 3. Existing Traffic Counts & AWT Z2G97 Page 8 Traffic Operations Traffic operations on the surrounding street system cannot be described accurately at some intersections due to disruption caused by construction conditions. Traffic volume demand at the intersection of Baxter and North r was eluded to in the previous section of this report and this seems to be the most critical problem area on the street system and at existing access points. A future project which will signalize the 1-90 ramp intersections with North r would create additional gaps at the Baxter intersection, but may only encourage more WalMart access traffic. Thus, control of this intersection would appear to imminent Capacity calculations were made for each intersection within the area of potential impact(see Appendix C). It was determined that the only intersection operating below design level of service (LOS) is Baxter and North 7`h Left turn and through movements from Baxter, at that intersection, operate at LOS "F°. Left turns from North 7"operate at LOS V. These calculations agree with observed operations. TRIP GENERATION Table 1. presents trip generation estimates for Burger King based on the ITE Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition (see Appendix B). Rates and total trips are shown for the average weekday and Saturday with peak PM hours for both days. Saturday rates are much higher for supermarkets, but the selection of the peak PM hour analysis period is based on much higher peak hour on-street volumes. Table 1. Estimate of Trip Generation For Safeway No. AWT Sat. Peak PM Peak Land Use Codes: Units Units Rate Rate Rate our Sat. 850 Supermarket 1000 SF 55 87.82 177.59 10.34 (1) Enter Exit Total Average Weekday Trips: 2415 2415 4830 Average Saturday Trips 4884 4883 9767 PM Peak Hour 290 279 569 Peak Hour Saturday 817 785 1602 (1) Ln(T)=2.065Ln(X)-0.896 Page 9 The total projected AWT of 4830 appears to be very high compared to existing AWT volumes of 2300 on Oak Street However, not all of these trips will be vehicular trips. 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 significant role in modal trip exchange. Therefore, no 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, it was assumed that approximately 2%of trips generated by Safeway would be pedestrians and bikes. 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. In this case, Safeway would have a fairly high passerby attraction with approximately 30%of all vehicular trips being passerby trips during the average weekday, which would double to approximately 60% during the peak PM hour. Since total development of this subdivision will involve both diverse and complementary businesses, trip interchange between businesses will likely occur. It is a known fact that developments which are built adjacent to complimentary facilities,such as those found in shopping centers and business 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 report contains information used to estimate ICT. The Colorado-Wyoming section of ITE has completed some studies of these factors and have developed some guidelines. A moderate degree of internal trip exchange could be projected for this subdivision with approximately 10%of all trips being Internal Capture trips. Page 10 Table 2., below, is a summary of the various trip types that can be expected with this development The net number of vehicular trips at the site access points is equal total trip generation less transit/pedestrian 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 2974 more vehicles on the surrounding street system and during the peak hour there would be 200 more vehicles. At the access points the impacts would be much greater with approximately 500 additional vehicles entering and leaving existing streets. Table 2. Safeway-Trip Mode, Trip Type & Net Vehicular Trips Average Weekday Trips: Peak:PM Hour Trips: Peak Hour Saturday ' Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Gross Trip Generation 2415 2415 4830 290 279 569 817 785 1602 Bike & Pedestrian Trips 48 48 96 6 6 12 16 16 32 Internal Capture Trips 242 242 484 29 28 57 82 79 161 Net Vehicular Trips 2125 2125 4250 265 245 500 719 690 1409 Passerby Trips 638 638 1276 153 147 300 216 207 423 Net New Vehicular Trips j 1487 1487 29.7.4 1 1:02 98 200 563 483 986 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 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 I influence method, or both. I Page 11 r In this case,a transportation planning model was developed for the 1990 Transportation Plan and 1993 plan update. In 1995, Marvin & Associates modified the model for the Durston Road Corridor Study to reflect accelerated growth being experienced in the Bozeman. Additional modifications and specific detail within the subject subdivision area was added to the QRS II model for purposes of analyzing trip distribution and projecting future street system volumes. Translation of subdivision trips to employment data was necessary within the modified model. In addition,the model parameters and path tree building functions assigns traffic to the street system in a manner that would be difficult to illustrate sufficiently for an accessibility study. Therefore,the model results were extracted in terms of trip distribution to and from the subdivision. With this information,manual traffic assignments were completed,which provides a better level of detail for accessibility analysis. However,the model provides an excellent tool for predicting traffic volumes when street segments are added or removed. In this case, a system link for North 51h Avenue was added to the model and traffic projections were run, as required in the analysis. Figures 4 and 5.,on the following pages, are graphic summaries of directional trip distribution extracted from the traffic model for primary trip. Also shown in these figures are trip distribution percentages for all passerby traffic. Since major street system changes are being planned,two separate models were developed. Figure 4.represents short term trip distribution with existing demographics. Two different values are shown, one for the existing street system and one for completion of projects under construction (Oak Street from 7"to 19`h and divider islands at 7'h and Baxter). Figure 5. Indicates future trip distribution for the year 2017, which includes all planned street system links and improvements. The QRS II Model provided distribution of primary trips, but short term passerby trip distribution is dependent upon existing traffic flows. Passerby distribution percentages shown in Figure 4. represent percentage of all approach volumes on the existing street system. In addition, the QRS II Model provided traffic volume estimates associated with added system links for both short term and future conditions. Passerby distribution was also calculated using model generated traffic flow splits. Thus,the combination of primary and passerby distribution percentages for all foreseeable conditions were used in the traffic assignment analysis. Page 12 25% Initial [25%1-4 Oak, 7th to 19th Complete L42 Primary Distribution (Type) WalMart 1 Baxter 5% [3%] Q' N s Proposed i� Safeway 0 zj Oak Street ------------ 0% 0% 53% [7%] o [17%] [51 /o] Passerby Distribution (Typ) 74% [57%] ' Figure 4. Short Term Trip Distribution Page 13 1.�1 I [10%] 390%16 Primary Distribution (Type) WalMart [ l [10 0 Baxter [6%] ai Q s = Proposed ` Safeway 0 z Oak Street [4.4%] [15%] [26%] [11%] [24%] Passerby Distribution (Typ) [3%] [5%] [7%] Figure 5. Year 2017 Trip Distribution 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 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. Traffic distribution is 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 This development it is more complex since it involves all of the above noted calculation methods combined with redirection of existing WalMart traffic that would be caused by development induced changes and planned street system changes. In addition, there could be many variable combinations of improvement timing that could be considered. Rather than perform assignment analysis for all possible combinations, it was decided traffic assignments would be completed for two time periods: • Short Term Conditions-which includes an extension of Oak Street from North 7"to North 19" and planned traffic island improvements at Baxter and North 7". 1� P e(k- C.j' 0 • Year 2017 Future System-which includes all planned improvements including Oak Street extending to the east and North 51"Avenue constructed between Hemlock and Oak. Prior to completing traffic assignments for the above conditions, an initial assignment was completed using the existing street system to provide a reference base. Figure 6. Illustrates initial development traffic assignment on the existing street system. AWT volumes on all of the approach streets are indicated as well as peak PM hour traffic at critical intersections. It should be noted that negative traffic volumes shown in Figure 6. result from diversion of existing passerby traffic. The highest AWT site traffic volumes would be on Oak Street with an additional 4000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Oak and North 7"would see a significant increase in westbound left-turn traffic from Oak with 141 more vehicles during the peak PM hour. Page 15 C F- Ni w w oQN m N 3 a 7 00 - N 3Ab Hlg'N C� O� Ln a- N U) co Y N N _ W — O Y � o i C14 � _ 00 E 00 a 0 LU > p hid _ 0000 o O Q ^, c C .. 0 0 - � •a1 o N O L1� L ++ a N N Ep N p I m '3AV H1L HlaON m N Page 16 Figure 7. presents total site traffic assignment on the surrounding street system for short term conditions. As could be expected,the largest volumes of site traffic would be concentrated on Oak Street, adjacent to the site. This assignment differs from the initial assignment primarily due to a new western access,which would take some traffic away from North 7`h. Existence of the Oak Street extension would redirect both primary and passerby trips. This would reduce the number of westbound left-turns and northbound right-turns at the intersection of Oak and North 7th. Figure 8. Illustrates year 2017 site traffic assignment during the peak PM hour. The most noticeable difference between Figures 7.and 8.is the increased traffic volume accessing the site from Oak Street, east of North 71h. This shift in access traffic reflects anticipated growth on the north and west ends of Bozeman. In addition, future traffic could also access the site directly from the east. Figure 8. Indicates that all westbound Oak Street site traffic would use the eastern drive approach, which reflects the desire of drivers to first find parking close to the store front, before settling on parking spaces toward the rear of the lot Figures 9. and 10. Illustrate the redirection of WalMart traffic. Figure 9. represents significant redirection primarily caused by prohibition of left-turns and thru movements at Baxter and North 7`h. Southbound and westbound WalMart egress traffic would have no alternative other than using Oak Street to leave the WalMart property. The proposed site plan would prohibit egress traffic from crossing in front of Safeway. Thus all WalMart southbound and westbound egress traffic would use the proposed north-south internal roadway. The 207 westbound left turn vehicles at Oak and North 7" represents a 240% increase over existing left-turn movements at that intersection. In Figure 10., overloading of certain movements would be somewhat reduced due to street system changes and significant changes in demographic centers. North 7'h traffic volumes would be reduced significantly and Oak Street traffic east and west of the site would increase proportionately. The 74 westbound right-turns from Oak at the eastern most site approach_are intentionally overstated. In actuality, circulation and pedestrian traffic in front of Safeway would severely limit travel time and at least 80% or about 60 westbound vehicles would use the north-south circulation road to access WalMart instead. This assignment was intentionally biased to present a worst case scenario for conservative evaluation of pedestrian conflicts. Page 17 C a 09O IrCLN 3 a I I - _ O N — C� � � '3Ad Hl5'N N� — - - cc - ---- - co E - Lo Ln — C N c}' �[ N •� � = O CO N U 1 C O a L 00 W00 � f S 00 H W y y L � E L s .a0i > I y o --r � - m `m a Z a I� �E ° E CD'v 3 s V 7 m C c> Z (Di li CL E CL �, 0) O � N j y d C) a� E o O � cn M N 00 \ n i' 3AV H1L H1dON 41 / LoW m Page 18 G NaU, OQN ac N 3 a 1-1 7 O 3AH H1g'N c N -- - _ LO �- = M M2-0 Ln D� a N� _ Y N — c0 O) LP I � — O N — L J � � ct o E c0 N } r N d Y L O � cl CL O 2~ aM a in Lo •°� i _ Lo cc o� : 3AV H1L HIHON T M N I Page 19 yam CL OQy 3 aN � CD U ,r J 3AV HIS'N N �M — — — ----- - 00 C a c 3 _ F- N I� 2-0 l 4 O C� W O N 0_ t O t Lc) O 4m m co .U) LU O c y L O E O t � ♦ V CD 11 O > +.• c0 E ._ - 0 H m-0 m � ry ot O: LO mm c, ZO i LO NM a . E 00 i CD ~ i0 CD � LDN (qQ .� c a. Jr' `�' y E D CO .�- M N O � w '3A`d H14 H1dON i M m M Page 20 0 } Na cc O oLL0 N Q aN 3 '3AV H15'N �Ar �� o = = M —► �� a — M t r'� _ O LO 3 M o O O L cc D o p LO r� Z= CV)0 voi .� 00 IL M M a) �L M t o W O_ N w W H' rA N O O AteA'' W M � L N i p, cO0 O H? O � ^ = N N v L a � as �F- c CDCL Iwo •�D i LO O Re� �— U) em cn N --- 10, CV p O w % '3AH H.0 HIHON co N O Page 21 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Volumes Impact for initial or short term 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 (AWT)and at the peak PM hour. The percent change in AWT only provides a general level of change and is used 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. Short term site traffic (Figure 7.) and short term redistribution of WalMart traffic (Figure 9.) were added to projected background traffic (from QRS II short term model) by summing and balancing all projected traffic movements. This method was also used to develop the final traffic flow mix projected for future street system conditions and to balance future system volume projections. Figures 11. And 12. show peak hour turning movement volumes for both short term and future development conditions, respectively. These volumes represent the sum of site traffic assignments and projected background traffic volumes. Neither figure indicates movements at other existing driveway approaches. These movements were omitted because they are minor (see Figure 3.) and would only confuse presentation of �. critical issues. � Figure 11. Illustrates a high level of turning movement volumes at all intersections on public streets and within the subdivision,while thru traffic on North 7`h would be somewhat lower than currently exists. On Oak, almost all movements to the site would be left-turn in and right-turn out Of the 44 vehicles accessing WalMart from the Safeway front isle,28 would be internal capture trips which would have originated in the Safeway lot Thus, only 16 vehicles could be considered thru traffic. Page 22 0 d N 0 09 0 a Q 0N a N �. '3Ab' HIS'N Lc)� M N R 00 CD v N L — O 100 O � — 1 00 n H 0 } � � o Lo cn M N d I � Ln N O M N = ._ w � N W o O o M I 2 L I Y O w H a 000 M � L Ln 1 04 0 Co M LL, ^ —� N CO! -0— 000 Ln O Off— 00 00 Ln Ln Ln Iw � '3AV H1L HlaON t Iq M Page 23 C H N Q W 0 m 0 U. O 3 CL o �_ N O O '3AV HA'N O - - —- 00 —► N LO 00 -_ LC v CC _ _ O a CD Lc C� O Q ,[— / M LL, 00 O 10 N O w � N N LU U r � 0 L = 0 N cn a � Q N 00 t O a � r L N ' N M .� L6 Co cr) cn J2 OL O .— O 00 LO^ � �_� nN 00r w O /� '3AV H1L HAON m ; M Page 24 Figure 12. Indicates that future redirection of traffic from north-south on North 7`h to east-west on Oak Street would reduce the high percentage of turning movements. Peak hour traffic on Oak Street, east of North 71h. would be approximately 845 vph with an AWT of approximately 8,500. Robert Peccia&Associates,who are consultants designing the Oak Street extension, indicated that the design year ADT on Oak, east of North 711 would be approximately 6,800 or 22%less than our projections. Thus, it is believed that the projections shown in Figure 12.provide a good, if somewhat conservative estimate of future traffic volumes at critical junctures. It should be noted that traffic projection for North 5"Avenue, using the QRS II model, indicate that total year 2017 volumes on North 5"would be around or below 1,000 AWT,with approximately half accessing Safeway and WalMart This assignment analysis does not include capacity constraints on North 7`h which also has the potential to increase traffic on parallel streets. — Capacity Impacts Appendix C contains capacity calculations for existing conditions along with short term and future levels of development growth, based on above noted traffic assignments. Figure 13. presents a summary of the capacity calculation in terms of level of service (LOS) and changes in delay. Level of service (LOS) designations (A thru F) are shown for critical movements at intersections and access points. The following narratives explain the capacity impacts at each intersection. • North 7`h and Oak- Existing capacity is excellent with the westbound movement providing LOS°C°. Short term conditions with additional Safeway traffic and redirected WalMart traffic would do nothing to change the LOS, but would increase delay by 8.4 seconds per vehicle. This assumes that the westbound approach would have two lanes outbound and 1 lane inbound. Year 2017 capacity would be at design LOS"C"or better on all legs. This assumes five lane street sections on all legs. Thus, no significant capacity impacts would occur at this intersection. Page 25 0 } i N Q c 0 0 ON CLFYI v� 3AV HIS'N _ � 0 ❑ _ — = = © FA In IL v r N ' ,moom m c ❑ } O L C C FA O C � O ; oil I' -aq o € rt IL � t c n t � o � Vo L s tO - - C r Y V o O I. m❑O � V b C C C y r El ��; 0 0o L © �� o o _Im �s0 c FM V y V Q V a m m ❑ '3AV HU HIMON ooma Pegs 26 • North 7" and Baxter - Existing capacity is extremely poor, at LOS "F", on both Baxter approaches. Short term conditions with diverter traffic islands would greatly improve LOS at this intersection. Even with additional Safeway traffic the LOS would improve from"F°to"B" and delay would be decreased by 30.8 seconds per vehicle. Future conditions would reduce northbound and southbound LOS from V to"C"with an immeasurable change in delay. • The western WalMart approach to Baxter would be greatly improved by eliminating blocking queues at the North 7`h intersection. A reduction in delay would also occur from short term to future conditions due to a redirection in traffic. • The intersection of the proposed north-south road and Baxter,within the subdivision would operate very well for both short term and future conditions. "B"would be the lowest LOS for any movement • North-south Internal Road and Oak- Short term capacity is excellent and is based on two outbound lanes from the internal road approach and three lanes (including a left-turn lane)on Oak. Future LOS would remain excellent with only a minimal change in delay. Future capacity is based on a five lane Oak Street section. • Main Safeway Approach and Oak-Short term capacity calculations were not completed since there would be no conflicting movements. Future capacity,with Oak built out to the east and North 5"extending south,would be good. The southbound left-turn would operate at design LOS C. Total intersection delay at the stop controlled intersection would be approximately 2.5 seconds per vehicle. Page 27 OmStreet Storage Capacity calculations in Appendix C indicate maximum vehicle queues lengths at a 95%confidence level for existing, short term and future conditions. Figure 13. Illustrates the results of the queue analysis which are included within capacity calculations. Only maximum queue lengths for any of the three time period is shown in Figure 13., except at the intersection of Baxter and North 7". Existing queues of seven vehicles currently exist and is shown to indicate the driveway blockage problem. None of the other critical intersection locations would have on-street storage problems which could cause safety or efficiency problems. Pedestrians Pedestrian access to the site will be provided via sidewalks surrounding the site. Pedestrian street crossings within the site in front of the Safeway store is an item of concern by the DRC. A marked pedestrian crossing in shown on the site plan. However, not all pedestrians would realistically cross at the crosswalk and it would be very difficult to design any barrier or facility that would confine crossings to one location. Since almost every commercial development in the United States is designed with a traffic aisle in front of the store, which separates the store from the parking lot, this is not an uncommon design. The question has been asked, whether this is safe,considering that WalMart ingress traffic could also use this aisle. To answer that question, an analysis of pedestrian gaps was completed assuming that the front aisle is used as a thru street That analysis, which uses a negative exponential distribution equation to predict gaps, can be found in Appendix D. It was assumed that the thru traffic volume on the front aisle would be the total of all vehicles entering and leaving both ends of the aisle (320 vph) and that all pedestrians would cross at one point. This analysis indicated that there would be a minimum of 120 gaps greater than 11 seconds (time to react and cross a 28' aisle). Single row capacity of this crossing would be as great as 760 pedestrians per hour or 50% more that the peak number of pedestrians anticipated (500 per hour). Thus, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would be less than what would exist at an unsignalized school crossing. However, analysis assumptions were very Page 28 C F L,LL, a ¢ O w N d N 3 a ■ ram; c�- '3A`d HIS'N am 4 L L I I i s } am , ■ goo IOU , 41 goo 0 3A`o' H1L HIUON W6 Page 29 conservative. In actuality, the vehicular volumes would be substantially less than the volumes used in the analysis. At least 50% of the front aisle vehicles would not be thru vehicles, but would be circulating around the perpendicular aisles. Of 128 vehicles accessing WalMart from the front isle, 28 would come from the Safeway lot(internal capture trips). Eighty of the remaining 100 vehicles were intentionally assigned to the front aisle access when in reality they would more likely use the western internal road approach due to shorter travel times. Thus, the store front aisle would not really be any different than any one of thousands of commercial parking lots throughout the United States. IMPACT MITIGATION Development of the Safeway store would generate a significant volume of new and redirected traffic to the proposed Oak Street approaches. However,that volume of traffic could easily be absorbed into the existing and planned system of streets external to the site. At the site access points, modifications are required to accommodate increased traffic volumes. Complicating impacts from increased volumes is redirection of r WalMart traffic from the existing Baxter Street approach to North 7".,Construction of the north-south internal circulation road is a mitigating measure used to mitigate an impact which was created by past decisions resulting in existing problems. The developer's planned construction of the north-south street is included in the site plan only to perpetuate access to WalMart form Oak Street and provides little if any benefit to Safeway. The traffic analysis, presented herein, indicates that with future construction of planned improvements, Safeway's development will not significantly impact the street system. Figure 15. presents minimum future improvements at and around the site. The internal diverter island between WalMart and Safeway will effectively removed WalMart egress traffic from the front aisle of Safeway. Of all WalMart ingress routes,the front aisle approach to Safeway would have the highest travel time and thus, would not be an attractive short- cutto WalMart Baxter Street should be remarked and signed to accommodate left turns as shown in Figure 15. This will adequately separate traffic flows and provide access to the vacant lot that could be developed in the future. Page 30 F- NQw O Uw 3 a`� a Eo 1O E U I z00 d , , ■ I - 3AV H19'N I of 71 i I H A a O. I I 2.9 I _ G � I -_ N O V -�O — 0 of I a� O L � 2 7 Lo do LU b U. d H 0 I I O <, a LL s ■■ e ki �-9 I r S- u • MEN I 2 ■ � ��� a a a b I ii d '3AV H1L H1dON o w .00001/ Pepe 31 Oak Street will eventually need to be a five lane facility, even though twenty year volumes projections indicate that a three lane facility would provide adequate capacity. Lane control on Oak Street would be the only design feature that is not totally straight forward. Existing K Mart approaches on the south side of Oak Street would be offset from the new approaches to Safeway. Although these approaches do not currently carry a significant volume of traffic, future redirection of traffic to east-west directions on Oak Street will undoubtedly increase these access volumes. Figure 15.Indicates thatthe future raised median in Oak could be constructed to allow left-turns in the eastbound direction, but would not allow left-turns into the existing K-Mart approaches. An altemate to this plan is shown in Figure 16. This concept would be based on abandoning plans to extend North 5"from Hemlock to Oak Street The eastern Safeway approach could then be moved in line with the front of store aisle,gaining enough separation distance to construct back to back, median separated, left turn bays. The back-to-back turn bays are based on an assumption that K-Mart would desire full access from Oak Street at some future date and that they would consolidate their approaches into one main approach, opposite the internal north-south street If this access is not desired by K-Mart,the westbound left-turn bay would not be required and the eastbound left turn bay for the Safeway approach could be extended further west, allowing additional length for deceleration and storage. An additional traffic assignment was completed for this alternate and peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 16. Also, capacity calculations in Appendix C indicate that both intersections would operate at an excellent LOS and the longest storage queue in any lane would be one vehicle. To date,it has always been assumed that 5" North would eventually be extended to Oak Street. However, it is argued that there are essentially no benefits to be derived by that expenditure of resources and many negative impacts may be associated with the extension, as indicated in the following narratives: • North 5� is a residential street that is too narrow at some locations; passes by an elementary school; and has documented accident problems. Extending continuity of local streets can only create potential for increased traffic. • Potential for additional traffic on North 51h would also exist as volumes on North 7"approach capacity and as developers build along its northern reaches. Page 32 O � I a W ^ = v) .- I I O � owc N E o �� " ~ jL w Z ° O ° ° iL > �o V caLL a� a I I G 2L- Ln N ° Z a c ° a� W wr a a O - � o a m � H C H ------w V J LU '3n`d H15 'N a Ls O I CL C� mtA ' 3 3 m c0 cn c O � o OtA H a W �O .> r� J ccm L m > Q o c a o n� N w � � Hr LC) a M� t N --- a ,i a a� aD C.4 O LQ M O Z � N I AA Page 33 • North 5th would begin to act as a collector street between Oak and Mendenhall, as one of only two continuous north-south streets between Rouse and North 7`h. North Xd Avenue,the other north-south street, is in a much better location to act as a collector. • Constructing North 5",north of Hemlock to Oak,would require a 190'jog in alignment creating offset "T" intersections on Hemlock Street Offset`T" intersection can operate safely and efficiently, only if sufficient distance is provided between them. Otherwise, safety and efficiency can be severely compromised, depending on the volume of left-turning traffic. The above narratives point out some critical issues that are just as compelling as the concerns expressed over vacation of North 5`h, north of Oak Street It is believed that reasons for constructing a new street should identify more benefits than impacts and a street shouldn't necessarily be build just because the right-of-way exists. If there are benefits that have been overlooked and a decision is made to extend North 5`h , access to the proposed Safeway store could still operate efficiently, but eastbound access to K-Mart woul �dleiminated ,> dam ____-- as a future option. Concerns expressed by the City of Bozeman's DRC in the original review have been addressed by BWA's modifications to the original site layout, as shown in Preliminary Site Plan#2C, dated 2-11-97. An informal review of the modified plan by DRC brought out some additional concerns that have been addressed in this study and are summarized below: • The concern with regard to storage on Oak street is addressed in the previous section. No short term or future storage problems surfaced in the analysis. • Future signalization of North 5"Avenue and Oak Street is not required according to traffic projections and capacity analysis. A signal warrant analysis is not included in this study,. since stop control would provide excellent LOS and signal warrants would not be met Page 34 r • The analysis has indicated that the internal north-south road would provide the least travel time routing for WalMart southbound egress and ingress from Oak Street. Short cutting through the Safeway parking lot, as suggested, would not be time effective to the average driver,due to travel path obstructions created by raised end aisles. Also, conflicting parking maneuvers and pedestrian activity would slow the time of cross-lot travel. • The amount of thru traffic generated by WalMart that would use the front aisle is insignificant compared to Safeway circulation traffic. A cursory study of WalMart in Billings, was completed to determine thru traffic accessing adjacent businesses. In that case, WalMart is in the same position as Safeway would be. Itwas determined that 70%of thru traffic detoured a much longer distance to adjacent businesses rather than be delayed by pedestrian and parking lot circulation activity. This percentage would be even higher in this case, since the alternate route is not as long. • The favored opinion appears to be relocating the store so that the North 51' alignment can remain as it exists and the Safeway store can be built east of that street This would create another pocket of undeveloped land that would also require access from North 5". Future development on that land would be one more contributor to increased traffic on North 5", south of Oak,which is not at all desirable on a local street The proposed plan with its internal north-south street would eliminate the Quality Inn access to Oak while still functioning similar to existing operations on North 5`h. This traffic analysis suggests that land development access is being planned around a street that probably shouldn't even exist, either now or in the future. Page 35 r RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for improvements prior to development of the Safeway store are shown in Figure 17. Those improvements include: 1. Construction of curb&gutter and sidewalk should be required along the north side of Oak Street along the property frontage and west to the intersection at the North 7`h intersection. This should be constructed at a location coinciding with the future street section on Oak Street, east of North 7th. 2. Redesign of the temporary transition section currently being constructed on Oak should be completed and lane markings with appropriate signing, as shown in Figure 17, should be included in street construction. 3. Two egress lanes from the two new Safeway approaches should be constructed as 40'wide street type approaches with 20'curb radii. r 4. Existing alignment of North 5", north of Oak should be vacated to accommodate the site plan. r 5. The City should abandon plans to extend North 51h, south of Oak, and concentrate on future development of North 3'd(600'east of North 51h) as a potential collector street within the future street system plan. 1 r Page 36 0 yak O xx� Q 0 J � � e C C '3AV H19'N 0 CL _r Y CL 0 � o c 0 L 0 L b d W C O 0 oZj E Y N vy > 3t — t L m fl. ° � ' E N Z Y c o � O c co 0 mLL E LL ate+ m E i 7 O V gC 0 Q: O 0 09 t CO r V H N • V ` IA m C C O J7 w U ;`o L o a CZ 0 a r Ca � •� s y CM W v. b V � J m om a� mom Page 37 6. Traffic projections indicate that there may be a need for protected/permissive left-turn phasing for southbound traffic on North r. The recently completed signal does not have signal heads for this movement. Provisions for adding a 4 head indication,at the end of the mast arm, should be made. 7. While not directly related to Safeway site impacts, the City of Bozeman should be aware of possibile consequences relative to planned improvements in the area. City and MDT plans for diverter islands at Baxter and North 7'h would minimize congestion, but may also cause errant maneuvers from drivers insistent on gaining direct access to North 7th. Also, a significant volume of U-turns may appear at adjacent signals. The City may want to fully analyze these improvements and determine definitive impacts that would result from signalization. Signalization of the Baxter-North 7th intersection would improve WalMart access and eliminate the need for a north-south thru access within the subdivision. With the high volume of turning movements on North rh that could be eliminated by signalization of this intersection, resulting progression and coordination may be better than originally suspected. Page 38 APPENDIX "A" TRAFFIC VOLUMES Page 39 N 04 i NN ? { N N 3 CA ? co (O ca CL = N 4- Q O r Ur OO 00 (f) to (O O r i i N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O to gCM (Vr00001- (OtnrfC) CN 0 cc IL IeIol 10 IU93J9d ALLY C � V La O H Z Ca NOR p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . N ° 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O LL y OOOOrMI- RtN00 ti0 OC7Nr000 Ci O 0j OOCDOOOON4P� ci 1.� 060 (O4MNr66 O � ! r W r � Y OOOOrNLA 00etC'4 LOCMCOcMrCMLAti00 ti M �= Q 4 rCOIl- 00f- LA N Co (OI'- 'VMr N p � m II r U) N O O O O r N (O 0 0141 Na 1- co r W Q ; r M Ln CO r- 00 CO i0 W W ca Y N = tiU) 0fl-V MN � I� 00 F. Q o = o ~ a L � C>) %- Cmm .tWcor� coolOrNM � CACC1� 000> OrNMC r0 = m r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N i 1 N i Cr) 1 i N co co s O Ln M_CL a..r i N O CD € i rn O t I fI I j LA Lf) r f t 7 LA i s i M E � N II II �o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II LA MN aMW1- 0LnqeMNCc � O L- cc L P10i 10 IUGOJ9d ALLY 0 cc co { o, 0 Z w \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o 0 0 \ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o O Y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r. M o o o 0 0 o 0 C o O o LpLneN � � O � NOOo1� 00 C e a) OOOOCOON 'tP20; C W 6L64C� O O W Z OOMNOMc � ccntnG00r- OMOrncco V, N � 00 O W0U. O O M N O M V) LO 00CD W CD Y � � � OMLON � � N •- OO Of L C O � NmRewLD 00010 � NM � LALp1� 00Q10 � cm - NNNNN � 2m r N i M N N O N i rn co i (O co O 0 ML � L O � O) W u") U � } cc)Q� O i qq i i i O O j M I i ' � N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 11 O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 pj Nd'c'MN Ornool- (oOVMNT- O L `° u � ielol ;o lV9OJ9d U- Y C T V '1) T cc o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o O Z \ OOOONN0LOMNOcno N a m w a a C LL o ' OOOOOOON41-- a; - 0 (o `7M 000 O O y 5N La W - QoOvvVLOr- N0vcvoOMc) LOr o N O N N N N N N r N LU � N � � � oovv 'WLOr- caNc00otio000000000 LLU f=.. O � � ►AO �- NNNN LU m E y C N H Y � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O N ccoo o m c) (D � � " 0 0 co Q C N � N N Q L C_ O O r r N N N N N O 2 m H i v N i i M N 04 i j N co � i O = O_ CU i E L N y- Q ! O N 00 I i O L O � � A E � i N II II o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. p Ln et M IN �0 000 I� Co U) �t M N — O 0 t a ` CU Co U- LL I8101 10 lu9OJ9d wU- � Q Oo2 cu Q '0 0 -2 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O ONI- I,- a0MMLA NMO VIl- 0MNLn00 qW OCCOOC � N � I� I� Qi0ia; 00LA0) I- Ln .4N000 O N 2 L° p � OOLO -It Ma O MN � M O ~ y - NOet W W Ln"'t w 0NNMOMMI- MO � NMO t Z Q p � r- � NNN � NN � r- � N N Z O LL CO O LO~ y C4 - NOv w MNq- Na00WNNLLO M coQ O � � � �- NNNIN �JqJ �jJ r,Q E LU �+ F- C4 o � � rnIN CDW � �- 00 M CD co O M CDto p M I- M� ON � G p O CM Cl et town, w w N M -0W WP� WMa � NMRt a� O 0) IN IN O 2 m � L E i N M CV i N 3 N N 00 CD t L 1 ' � +�+ ' N O Q N co = O r ( E 3 ` E N IL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p II p \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ o IL ca C L A V M N � O M 00 I- (O U A � M N � O cu LL IeIol Jo }u9OJ9d LL J co �r. p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o \ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p CD - C*4 - LOU) NOOM V '-tNMu-) 1- O , qWI- W) NO C 1 O O O O O O O r N uA 1" 1' Ci 06 O 6 6 1-� LA Cl) N O O O 5 r 3 co 1� Z dY CO coco (DN � OOf- 0 N c0 Z Q Or M r- � O NV � .M- m 0 � � � N � � Nc0 co � � 0 OMO �"' LL 0 m r W 3 OL OrMr4O0NT - MMOD - O00 r (C E WO y v � = NLOLn0vmNc00v � 0 Q II O N O O rNc� eF1ACO1� 00010rNV) leW) (OI� 00a) OrNe"» +�+ O p r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N O 2 m F- 1 v N CM N N � N O 3 F 0) co CU N r � i i r i i r N E i i r 01 i > i I co = Ln LA r i i i O O O i O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 11 \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nao i `p -6 n L17V MNr00001- COL17IVMN r0 a LL LL Y I8101 10 IPGOJad a w v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O r r r 1- 00 M O M t N Ln N W 1- r r 1- O LO N N C7 a ' OOOO666NM0 1- 06 6 00 006 1� 64Mr OO O �jcu Z d 'o 001- r01- ONaWMrNM to M O > Y r CM CM Ln 0 [,- U) co 1- 0 W W fl- M * CD 0 N O I-- Q) O � a C7NCMOOrNMM0CMMCM V MNNrO Z W LL � ON � rMMLAOr— LOCO ti - 01'- NM000000000 " aC � MNMOOrNMMM � �t N W m E W r C4 � OOOOOOOOOOOOOMCMM V � 0aN to MI- CD N W O = M M M M N N r N m ~ a O CDr N N N N N O = m F— i 1 i M i N ° f N c O N W i i a0 t t co M i r = i � i i 0 0 (b N <o � (0 LO i N j i f i II II o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p II C L(') q4t CO) N V"00Wr- WNstMN O cu u O LL cc cc LL 140oi 10 IU90 Gd U- -)e O m V o 4- \° \ \ \° \° \ \ \ \ \° \° \° \° \° \ \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O U) e y NC7N U� LOP,-: - ON0gLoI.- v v o wLoa 0 00000 .- N * W V 0W 0 r-- (Or-- o66 A MCicNi O Q T � � O m LO LL 0 d � Wr- MMN0 � ~ M01-- M0vw (Dv V LO O o Z Q 4) ( e� N � (OmN W) (00 (0r- 10 0 � 00MOrnMOt00 co V M � � N N � r o N � V � 00) 001- 00) NOCOt � (0 0 oLL (0C4) 04 O - NLO (00 (COrl- 000 ti Z ti = to N or) I� M0et000ItvN � N O) M co O) (O O co 0) m 0 C 0 0 ) r 0 CO � Itt M Z V C O 0 � N ("» N (D1� 000) 0 04CO) W) to1ft000) CD Nt7 e} V O a) = m � 1 cV (7 N 04 04 i N 0) r 2 i l U- Q 2 M +r CL N N-- n/ Cl)LL ti � L i N CO — M O : � � i E c0 O O i 3 4 ( LO i M N f � II II O O O o 0 0 o O O O O o o O O � t LnvMN � ornoor- coInvcoN � o co "- M Co leIol 10 lu9OJ9d w u Y C '' U 2 F- cc o N -0- -0- � R � � O � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 000000000000000O00000000 0 Y ORN M Cl) C'7MCO Vr- 00IW ►n0) CD cn V 00 V ON0000MC0 6 Q OOOOO cM00cOcOc01-: l� cOcOI- I-� cOcnMNN 6 O o LL cc O Z 00 MMMO V MNNOLA 'tOM , coCMNcC) a m � Y v 't cO f� .-v 'tMMO O M OO CO I- N O LA N st 0 U, M r- N I- I- I� r- = a � .� � 000OM � MOOOO � � OOCO � MM � � M N lz m o N LL COM CAM co v 000 000 0) O m ON0 0~0 II O a Oy ~ U) N a+ N = LAvOM � cOMNLnO eh W � OOOI- N1- 1� 1- � O O � 00W0VMM Go Z O O c7 � NM � IAID1� 000f Oe� N � cACOf� 000lOeNM � _ N N N N N O i North lth Avenue - SB Daily Traffic Variations 1.40 ` 1.20 1 1 '.".. 1.00 r,: �: 3 .' 14 �: 2 0.80 0.60 t " 0.40 - zz0.20 •X +-�• •�.�to 1 0.00 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu T Fri Sat Day of Week North 7th Avenue - NB Daily Traffic Variations 1.40 1.20 Q 51 l �• 5 " 1.00 .� 15 M 0.80 0 L. : � • <� lL 0.60 ' 'tlk,� jo 1;3..t •.(i." , i'�w i J� 4:i� S•• � Y,., � 11�tA Y yr � 0.40 7 0.20 ��',1i �1i 4 �f :i i• , 0.00 �^ Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Day of Week .I 1 1 1 APPENDIX "B" r TRIP GENERATION REFERENCES Pap 40 1 1 1 Land Use: 850 Supermarket Independent Variables With One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data. Users are cautioned to use these data with care due to the small sample size. Trip Size of Number Generation Independent of Independent Variable Rate Variable Studies Directional Distribution Employees _ Weekday 87.82 44 1 50% entering, 50% exitin Trip Generation, January 1991 1397 Institute of Transportation Engineers i Supermarket (850) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 10 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 32 Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 10.34 0.80 - 59.67 8.63 Data Plot and Equation 1,100 1,000 900 f - Np 800 .� . 1Z i y rU 600 L N > 500 X Q) fti X 400 X,/ , Q II 300 X. 200 . . . . . . X 100 _ X r 0 10 20 - 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ' X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 = **** Trip Generation, January 1991 1390 Institute of Transportation Engineers Supermarket (850) I Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 6 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 39 Directional Distribution: 70% entering, 30% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.01 0.10 - 7.78 3.05 Data Plot and Equation 200 190 X 180 x 170 _ 160 cn 150 :.. . . . W 140 ,< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 130 .. . . . . . . . . 120 . . . . . . . . . 110 L > 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . m 90 . . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . ;. . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . :. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . ..:. . . . . . . . .:. 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 40 .. . . . . . . . . . . .x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 X 20 10 —f 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 = **** Trip Generation, January 1991 1389 Institute of Transportation Engineers Supermarket (850) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Saturday Number of Studies: 2 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 27 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 177.59 168.41 - 190.43 ` aData Plot and Equation Caution - Use Carefully - small Sample Size 5,700 5,600 . .. . . . . . .... 5,500 ... .. . . . 5,300 . . . . . ... . 5,200 . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . :. . . . . . . W 5,100 . . . . . - - . . . . . .,' . . . . .. . . a 5,000 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. �' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 4,900 -;� -: > 4,800 . . . . . m 4,700 . . ... . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . I . . . . . . . � 1 . > 4,600 r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Q 4,500 , . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . II � 1 �- 4,400 . . . . . II X 4,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4,200 ?'. . . . . . .:. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . 4,100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000 - 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ' X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 Trip Generation, January 1991 1393 Institute of Transportation Engineers Supermarket 1 (850) ' Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 5 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 27 Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 15.33 5.00 - 22.60 6.30 Data Plot and Equation Caution - Use Carefully- Small Sample Size soo - 500 x C W 400 '� a s m U / 300 m ro m Q 200 . 100 o - -- - 10 20 30 40 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 2.065 Ln(X) - 0.896 R2 = 0.88 Trip Generation, January 1991 1394 Institute of Transportation Engineers J Discount Store 1 (815) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 14 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 112 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation ' II 4.35 2.50 - 5.91 2.30 Data Plot and Equation 700 . i x x r . . . X soo x . x W x X i- 500 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - " x U - X . Q) - m I _ X (II 400 ,... . . . . . . .. . . L X II 1 300 1 200 . 80 90 100 110 120 130 ' X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Average Rate �} Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 = **** ' Trip Generation, 5th Ed. Update, Feb.1995 42 Institute of Transportation Engineers R�` Discount Store (815) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 18 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 106 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 57.06 25.53 - 106.88 20.96 Data Plot and Equation 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 . . . . . . . . -,. . . ... . . 1 1,000 X. . W a- 10,000 - .. . . . .. . . . . h. . .. . . . 9,000 8,000 7,000 x. . _�- '- ' X a) 6,000 .X ' ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Q Xj : X 5,000 ;_. . '' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . , x. J 4,000 : .. . . , x. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 3,000 .. . . . . . . .•.:K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 . . . . . , . . . .. . ,000 50 60 70 j 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 96.770(X) - 4216.699 R2 = 0.54 ' Trip Generation, 5th Ed. Update, Feb.1995 41 Institute of Transportation Engineers APPENDIX "C" CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Page 41 SIG/Cinema V1.01 ORGANIZATION: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS OAK STREET /NORTH 7TH SUMMARY ANALYST: ROBERT R MARVIN ANALYSIS DATE: 3-04-97 ANALYSIS PERIOD: CASE: OAKN7TH -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I LANES I GEOMETRY: MOVEMENTS SERVICED BY LANE AND LANE WIDTHS (FT) i App Outbndl Lane 1 1 Lane 2 1 Lane 3 1 Lane 4 1 Lane 5 1 Lane 6 EB 1 1 1 LTR 12.01 1 1 1 1 WS 1 1 1 LTR 12.01 1 1 1 1 NB 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 1 SB 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I EAST I WEST 1 NORTH 1 SOUTH Data IL 1T 1R IL 1T IR IL 1T 1R 1L 1T 1R --------------I----1----I----I----1----1----i----1----1----1----1----i---- Mvt Vol (vph) 1 101 51 201 1001 51 201 25111501 201 351 9301 10 PHF 10.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.90 %Hvy Vehicles 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 Arrival Type 1 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 3 --------------I--------------I--------------I--------------I-------------- RTOR Vol (vph)I 8 1 8 1 0 1 0 Peds/Hour I 10 1 10 I 10 1 10 % Grade 1 0 1 0 ( 0 1 0 Parkers/Hour I 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 Buses/Hour I 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS: SEMI-ACTUATED DESIGN ANALYSIS CYCLE LENGTH: 60.0 PHASE: I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 IPED ONLY EB 1 LTP I I I I I I I I WB 1 LTP I I I I I I I I NS 1 1 LTP I I I I I SB I 1 LTP I I I I I I I GREEN I 7.2 1 44.8 i 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0 YELLOWI 2.3 1 2.3 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 RED 1 1.7 1 1.7 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3.0 SEC LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6.0 SEC -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS I APPROACH: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay I Delay LOS App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOSI(sec/veh) --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------- ---I-------- --- EB LTR 198 0.02 0.14 LTR 0.15 14.8 B I 14.8 B I I WB * LTR 198 0.09 0.14 LTR 0.66 21.1 C 1 21.1 C I I I NB L 164 0.13 0.76 L 0.17 1.3 A I 1.8 A * TR 2893 0.36 0.76 TR 0.47 1.8 A I I SB L 127 0.23 0.76 L 0.31 1.9 A I 1.6 A TR 2896 0.29 0.76 TR 0.38 1.6 A I I INTERSECT: DELAY = 2.8 SEC/VEH Xc = 0.50 LOS = A Sum(v/s)CR = 0.45 NETSIM Summary for Case: OAHM7TH OAK STREET NORTH 77H EXISTING CONDITIONS Version 1.81 Queues Spillback in 930 Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 0 3 Lane Storage Speed (x of Peak i i App Group (veh) (mph) Period) EB 1 11.2 0.0 28 All 11.2 0.6 i i i 5 r— 100 wB LTR 2/ 3 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 10 1 1I 2B z , MB L 0/ 1 12.8 0.0 TR 3/ 4 23.4 0.0 i I f I All 23.4 0.0 i 25 28 i 1150 SB L 1/ 2 5.7 0.0 1 TR 2i 4 24.6 0.0 7 2 45 .ili•2 2 All 23.5 0.8 Intersect. 21.3 SIG/Cinema V1.01 ORGANIZATION: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES SHORT TERM WITH SITE TRAFFIC OAK STREET /NORTH 7TH SUMMARY ANALYST: ROBERT R MARVIN ANALYSIS DATE: 3-04-97 ANALYSIS PERIOD: CASE: OAKN7TH -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES I GEOMETRY: MOVEMENTS SERVICED BY LANE AND LANE WIDTHS (FT) App Outbndl Lane 1 1 Lane 2 1 Lane 3 1 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 2 1 1 L 12.01 TR 12.01 1 I WB 2 1 1 L 12.01 TR 12.01 1 I NB 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 I SB 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I EAST I WEST I NORTH I SOUTH Data I L I T I R I L I T 1 R 1 L I T I R I L I T I R --------------I----I----I----I----1----I----1----I----1----1----I----I---- Mvt Vol (vph) 1 401 601 301 3251 601 401 501 8801 1701 1411 6901 50 PHF 10.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.90 %Hvy Vehicles 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 11 01 01 11 0 Arrival Type 1 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 3 --------------I--------------I--------------I--------------I-------------- RTOR Vol (vph)I 5 1 10 1 20 I 10 Peds/Hour 1 5 I 5 1 5 I 5 % Grade I 0 1 0 0 1 0 Parkers/Hour I 0 I 0 0 I 0 Buses/Hour I 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS: SEMI-ACTUATED DESIGN ANALYSIS CYCLE LENGTH: 60.0 PHASE: I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 IPED ONLY EB I LTP I I I I I I I I WB I LTP I I I I I I I I NB I I I LTP I LTP I I I I I SB I I LTP I LTP I I I I I I GREEN 1 18.0 1 5.0 ( 16.0 1 5.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0 YELLOWI 2.3 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 2.3 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 RED 1 1.7 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 1.7 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3.0 SEC LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 9.0 SEC -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS I APPROACH: Lane Cap V/s g/C Lane V/c Delay I Delay LOS App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOSI(sec/veh) --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------- ---1-------- --- EB L 423 0.03 0.32 L 0.10 9.4 8 1 9.5 B TR 576 0.05 0.32 TR 0.16 9.5 8 1 I I WB * L 430 0.27 0.32 L 0.84 21.9 C I 19.2 C TR 572 0.06 0.32 TR 0.17 9.6 B I I I N8 Lper 127 0.12 0.28 I 10.6 B Lpro 271 0.00 0.15 L 0.14 7.1 B I * TR 1593 0.33 0.43 TR 0.75 10.7 B I I SB Lper 127 0.00 0.33 1 8.5 B * Lpro 180 0.09 0.10 L 0.51 9.5 B I TR 1615 0.23 0.43 TR 0.53 8.3 B I INTERSECT: DELAY = 11.2 SEC/VEH Xc = 0.80 LOS = 8 Sum(v/s)CR = 0.68 NETSIM Summary for Case: OAHH7TH OAH STREET /MRTH 7TH SHORT TERM UITH SITE TRAFFIC Version 1.81 Queues Spillback in 690 t Per Lane Avg Worst Lane t �14 t i Lane Storage Speed (x of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) Period) t EB L 1i 2 5.1 0.0 t i 40 TR 11 2 11.3 0.0 t 60 t 325 All 9.4 0.0 t t WB L 5/ 6 3.3 5.3 - - - t ti TR 1/ 2 19.2 0.0 40 t t t All 7.4 5.3 60—6, t t t � NB L Oi 2 7.6 0.0 t t TR 6/ 8 13.5 0.0 t I f I All 13.4 0.0 t i 50 170 t 800 SB L 2/ 4 3.3 0.0 1 , 4 2 +i�L, 3 .i�i. 4 TR 4/ 7 16.2 0.0 ff tt All 14.3 0.0 18 2 2 5 4 16 *1 1 4 5 11i'2 2 Intersect. 12.6 SIG/Cinema V1.01 ORGANIZATION: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES FUTURE SYSTEM TRAFFIC OAK STREET /NORTH 7TH SUMMARY ANALYST: ROBERT R MARVIN ANALYSIS DATE: 3-04-97 ANALYSIS PERIOD: CASE: OAKN7TH -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES I GEOMETRY: MOVEMENTS SERVICED BY LANE AND LANE WIDTHS (FT) App Outbndl Lane 1 1 Lane 2 1 Lane 3 1 Lane 4 1 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 3 2 I L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 WB 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 NB 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 I SS 3 2 1 L 12.01 T 12.01 TR 12.01 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I EAST I WEST I NORTH I SOUTH Data I L I T I R I L I T I R 1 L 1 T I R I L I T I R --------------I----1----1----1----1----I----i----1----1----I----1----1---- Mvt Vol (vph) 1 601 1601 301 1601 1951 801 100111501 1701 1601 7501 120 PHF 10.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.9010.90 %Hvy Vehicles 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 11 01 01 11 0 Arrival Type 1 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 3 --------------I--------------I--------------I--------------I-------------- RTOR Vol (vph)I 5 1 20 ( 10 1 20 Peds/Hour 1 5 1 5 5 1 5 % Grade 0 1 0 0 1 0 Parkers/Hour 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 Buses/Hour 1 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS: SEMI-ACTUATED DESIGN ANALYSIS CYCLE LENGTH: 80.0 PHASE: 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 l 6 1 7 1 8 IPED ONLY EB I LTP I LTP I I I I I I I WB I I LTP I LTP I I I I I NB I I I I LTP 1 LTP I I I I SB I I I I I LTP I LTP I I I GREEN I 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 13.0 1 23.0 1 5.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0 YELLOWI 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 4.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 RED 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3.0 SEC LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 9.0 SEC -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS I APPROACH: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay I Delay LOS App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOSI(sec/veh) -- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------- ---1-------- --- EB Lper 95 0.00 0.11 1 18.1 C * Lpro 135 0.04 0.08 L 0.29 18.0 C 1 TR 698 0.06 0.19 TR 0.31 18.2 C 1 I WB * Lper 95 0.07 0.08 1 20.0 C * Lpro 203 0.05 0.11 L 0.60 22.0 C 1 TR 687 0.08 0.19 TR 0.43 18.9 C 1 I NB Lper 95 0.00 0.34 1 12.1 B Lpro 316 0.06 0.17 L 0.27 8.1 B I * TR 1892 0.41 0.51 TR 0.81 12.4 B 1 I SB Lper 95 0.30 0.30 1 14.0 B * Lpro 203 0.05 0.11 L 0.60 20.4 C 1 TR 1524 0.27 0.41 TR 0.65 12.9 B 1 INTERSECT: DELAY = 14.3 SEC/VEH Xc = 0.70 LOS = 8 Sum(v/s)CR = 0.62 NETSIM Summary for Case: 0AHN7TH OAH STREET /NORTH 7TH FUTURE SYSTEM TRAFFIC Version 1.81 Queues Spillback in 750 Per Lane Avg Worst Lane i 116� Lane Storage Speed (x of Peak L i App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 88 EB L 2/ 3 3.9 8.8 195 TR 2/ 3 6.8 8.0 168 All 6.2 8.8 _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WB L 2/ 3 3.5 8.8 TR 4/ 5 6.4 8.8 i ti All 5.8 8.8 60 li 160 NB L 2/ 4 3.1 8.8 30 z TR 8/ 10 13.7 8.8 I f I All 13.0 0.8 i 188 170 1150 SIB L 4/ 6 1.9 1.4 1 2 , + _ 3 4 TR 6/ 8 14.8 0.8 4 5 4 5 4 13 11 4 A l l 11.5 1.4 ,�, ,� Intersect. 10.9 2;3 *ili+4 5 4 MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 04, 1997 02:53 PM NORTH 7TH&BAXTER EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg Y=YIELD CONTROL SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Grade= SHARED LANES X X 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S S NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN LANE <-- Grade=-2%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE (2 LANES) EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Major Left Leg Grade= 2% —� NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. LARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg left thru fight I left thru right left thru right left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 142 798 1165 69 545 49 82 1 135 18 5 74 PEAK HOUR FACTORS .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 158 887 183 77 606 54 91 1 150 20 6 82 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 192 887 183 69 606 54 92 1 151 1 20 1 6 84 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) SATURATION VOLUME 8 2 4 6 0 J 54 120 <-- 606 180 Major Right Leg f � 69 192 J Major Left Leg 800 887 —� 200 183 9 1 1 NOTE: 2 5 Saturation Volumes are used 1 to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major Street Left Turn Lane Minor Bottom Le is shared. g MARVIN & ASSOCIATES WINLINSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM LINSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 04, 1997 02:53 PM NORTH 7TH&BAXTER EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 978 vph 633 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 5.7 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 419 pcph 639 pcph Movement Capacity: 419 pcph 639 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 63.9% 86.9% LEFT TURN FROM. Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 1070 vph 660 vph Critical Gap: 5.1 seconds 5.1 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 514 pcph 816 pcph Movement Capacity: 514 pcph 816 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 86.6% 76.5% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 1873 vph 1937 vph Critical Gap: 6.3 seconds 6.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 97 pcph 89 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementei.66 0.66 Movement Capacity: 64 pcph 59 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 98.4% 89.9% LEFT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 1889 vph 1921 vph Critical Gap: 6.8 seconds 6.8 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 73 pcph 70 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.59 0.65 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(0$8 0.73 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementei.59 0.47 Movement Capacity: 43 pcph 32 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Minor Bottom Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 92 43 - 715.8 F -Severe Congestion Ave Delay Through 1 64 404 14.2 C - Normal Delays 278.7 se . Right Turn 151 419 404 14.2 C -Normal Delays Shared Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 20 32 36 225.6 F - Severe Congestion Ave Delay Through 6 59 36 225.6 F -Severe Congestion F58.3 sec Right Turn 84 639 - 6.5 B -Short Delays Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay Major Left Leg 192 816 5.8 B-Short Delays 0.9 sec. Major Right Leg 69 514 8.1 B-Short Delays 0.8 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 32.4 seconds MARVIN & ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 04, 1997 02:53 PM NORTH 7TH&BAXTER EXISTING CONDITIONS MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. Left and Through movements Share a Lane J 1 2 Major Right Leg Major Left Leg 7 2 Right and Through Movements Share a Lane Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 03:57 PM SHORT TERM TRAFFIC INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg Y=YIELD CONTROL SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Grade= SHARED LANES X X X 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S S NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN LANE <— Grade=-2%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. (MULTI LANES) Major Left Leg Grade= 2% —> NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. ❑ LARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg ; left thru right left thru right left thru right I left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 140 819 149 69 569 49 0 0 149 0 0 110 PEAK HOUR FACTORS .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 1.00 1.00 .90 1.00 1.00 .90 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 156 910 166 77 632 54 0 0 1664, 0 0 122 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 1189 910 166 1 69 632 54 0 0 167 0 0 123 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) AND SATURATION VOLUME 1 3 0 0 54 120 F— 632 180 Major Right Leg 69 189 Major Left Leg 800 910 200 166 ' 0 0 1 NOTE: 6 Saturation Volumes are used 7 to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major is shared. Left Turn Lane Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 03:57 PM SHORT TERM TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 538 vph 343 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 5.7 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 718 pcph 910 pcph Movement Capacity: 718 pcph 910 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 76.7% 86.5% LEFT TURN FROM. Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 1076 vph 687 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 seconds 5.6 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 440 pcph 720 pcph Movement Capacity: 440 pcph 720 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 84.3% 73.7% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 1912 vph 1967 vph Critical Gap: 6.8 seconds 6.8 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 71 pcph 65 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovementED.62 0.62 Movement Capacity: 44 pcph 41 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 100.0% 100.0% LEFT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg ' Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 1857 vph 1802 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 seconds 7.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 59 pcph 64 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.62 0.62 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(0'71 0.71 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovementsO.61 0.54 Movement Capacity: 36 pcph 35 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Minor Bottom Leg Volume I Capacity Capacity, DELAY 1 Level Of Service Left Turn 0 36- 718 6.5 B - Short Delays Ave Delay Through 0 44 718 6.5 B - Short Delays 6.5 sec. Right Turn 167 718 718 6.5 B - Short Delays Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service - Left Turn 0 35 910 4.6 A Little Delay Ave Delay Through 0 41 910 4.6 A- Little Delay 4.6 sec. Right Turn 123 910 910 4.6 A - Little Delay Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay Major Left Leg 189 720 6.8 B - Short Delays Major Right Leg 69 440 9.7 B -Short Delays 0.9 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 1.6 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 03:57 PM SHORT TERM TRAFFIC MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. ' All Movements Share one Lane 1 Major Right Leg Major Leff Leg 1 All Movements Share one Lane Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 03:59 PM FUTURE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg Y=YIELD CONTROL SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Grade= SHARED LANES X X X 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S S NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN LANE E— Grade=-2%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. (MULTI LANES) ' Major Left Leg Grade= 2% NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. LLARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg left thru right left thru right left thru right left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 130 000 109 49 781 69 0 0 134 0 0 1140 PEAK HOUR FACTORS .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 1.00 1.00 .90 1.00 1.00 .90 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 144 111 121 54 868 77 0 0 149 s: 0 0 156 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 176 111 121 48 868 77 0 0 1150 0 0 157 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) D SATURATION VOLUME 1 7 0 0 77 120 <- 868 FTFOq Major Right Leg f � 48 176 J Major Left Leg 800 1111 200 121 0 0 1 NOTE: 5 Saturation Volumes are used 0 to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major Street Left Turn Lane Minor Bottom Le is shared. g MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 03:59 PM FUTURE TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 616 vph 472 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 5.7 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 652 pcph 777 pcph Movement Capacity: 652 pcph 777 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 77.0% 79.8% LEFT TURN FROM: Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 1232 vph 944 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 seconds 5.6 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 361 pcph 520 pcph Movement Capacity: 361 pcph 520 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 86.7% 66.1 % Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 2315 vph 2337 vph Critical Gap: 6.8 seconds 6.8 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 40 pcph 39 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovementEO.57 0.57 Movement Capacity: 23 pcph 22 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 100.0% 100.0% LEFT TURN FROM. Minor Bottom Leg . Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 2238 vph 2216 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 seconds 7.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 33 pcph 34 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.57 0.57 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(0'07 0.67 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementei.53 0.51 Movement Capacity: 17 pcph 17 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Minor Bottom Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 0' 17 652 7.2 B - Short Delays Ave Delay Through 0 23 652 7.2 B - Short Delays 7.2 sec. Right Turn 150 652 652 7.2 B - Short Delays Shared Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 0 17 777 J 5.8 B - Short Delays Ave Delay Through 0 22 777 5.8 B - Short Delays 5.8 sec. Right Turn 157 777 777 5.8 B - Short Delays Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay Major Left Leg 176 520 10.4 C - Normal Delays rjjiii. Major Right Leg 48 361 1 11.5 C - Normal Delays 0.6 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 1.6 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 03:59 PM FUTURE TRAFFIC , % " . MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity In vehicles per hour. All Movements Share one Lane 1 Major Right Leg Major Left Leg E 1 All Movements Share one Lane ` Minor Bottom Leg ,I 1 � r MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:06 PM NEW INTERNAL ROAD&OAK SHORT TERM CONDITION INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=30 MPH SATURATION VOLUMES E— Grade=-2% <— 200 1800 (2 LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 222 Major Left Leg SHARED LEFT LANE Major Left Leg Grade= 2% Major Right Leg 82 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 0 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft O 1 3 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade= NO SHARED LANES 8 NOTE: % SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 7 Saturation Volumes are use ❑LARGE to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when th POPULATION Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru right left I thru left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 82 0 222 200 0 352 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 82 0 222 200 0 352 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 82 0 222 200 0 1 387 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 504 vph 82 vph Critical Gap: 6.5 seconds 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 541 pcph 1258 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movemeni%_84 - Movement Capacity: 455 pcph 1258 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right Leg Conflicting Flow: 82 vph Critical Gap: 5.0 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1567 pcph Movement Capacity: 1567 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 85.8% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) 84.1 % SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Movements Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Dela Left From Minor Bottom Leg 0 455 - 7.9 B - Short Delays 4.1 sec. Right From Minor Bottom L '387 1258 - 4.1 A- Little Delay Left From Major Right Leg 222 1567 - 1 2.7 A - Little Delay 1.4 sec. I Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 2.6 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:06 PM NEW INTERNAL ROAD&OAK SHORT TERM CONDITION MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. 0 2 Left and Right movements use Exclusive Lane l t 1 r �� MARVIN & ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:12 PM C:\UNSIG3UNTOAK.INT NEW INTERNAL ROAD&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND_ PREVAILING SPEED=30 MPH SATURATION VOLUMES <-- Grade=-2% <— 270 1800 (Multi LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 120 Major Left Leg EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE Major Left Leg Grade= 2% Major Right Leg 140 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 7 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft 7 3 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade= NO SHARED LANES 7 3 NOTE: SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 0 Saturation Volumes are use LARGE to calculate Probability of POPULATION Queue Free States when th Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru right left thru left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 140 7 120 270 70 300 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 140 7 120 270 70 300 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES _ 140 7 1 120 1 270 1 77 330 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 534 vph 74 vph Critical Gap: 7.0 seconds 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 483 pcph 1271 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movemenig:92 - Movement Capacity: 442 pcph 1271 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right L6g Conflicting Flow: 147 vph Critical Gap: 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1429 pcph Movement Capacity: 1429 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 91.6% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Movements Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left From Minor Bottom Leg 77 442 9.8 B -Short Delays Ave Dela Right From Minor Bottom Leg 330 1271 - 3.8 A - Little Delay 5.0 sec. Left From Major Right Leg 120 1429 - 2.7 A - Little Delay Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 2.7 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:12 PM C:\UNSIG3UNTOAK.INT NEW INTERNAL ROAD&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. 1 1 Left and Right movements use Exclusive Lane 1 1 r . MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:11 PM NORTH 5TH AVE&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg Y=YIELD CONTROL SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Grade= SHARED LANES X X 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S S NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE I � 'I— NO RIGHT TURN LANE E— Grade=-2%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. (MULTI LANES) Major Left Leg Grade=-2% —> NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. LARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg left thru right I left thru right left thru right left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 150 1180 10 10 90 1115 15 27 10 60 8 42 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 150 180 10 10 90 115 15 27 10 60 8 42 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 150 180 10 10 90 115 17 30 11 66 9 46 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) AND SATURATION VOLUME 6 9 6 C 115 120 E— 90 180 Major Right Leg 10 Ir 150 Major Left Leg 800 180 —� 200 10 1 3 1 NOTE: 7 0 1 Saturation Volumes are used to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:11 PM NORTH 5TH AVE&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 95 vph 103 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 5.7 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 1233 pcph 1222 pcph Movement Capacity: 1233 pcph 1222 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 99.1 % 96.2% LEFT TURN FROM: Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 190 vph 205 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 seconds 5.6 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1348 pcph 1323 pcph Movement Capacity: 1348 pcph 1323 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 99.3% 88.7% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 550 vph 498 vph Critical Gap: 6.8 seconds 6.8 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 497 pcph 535 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovementED.88 0.88 Movement Capacity: 437 pcph 471 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 93.1 % 98.1 % LEFT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 439 vph 501 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 seconds 7.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 535 pcph 486 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.86 0.82 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(O'RO 0.86 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementef.86 0.85 Movement Capacity: 461 pcph 415 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Minor Bottom Leg I Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 17 461 - 8.1 B - Short Delays Ave Delay Through 30 437 529 7.4 B - Short Delays 7.6 sec._ Right Turn 11 1233 529 7.4 B - Short Delays Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 66 415 - 10.3 C - Normal Delays Ave Delay Through 9 471 969 3.9 A - Little Delay 7.4 sec. Right Turn 46 1222 969 3.9 A- Little Delay Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay Major Left Leg 150 j 1323 I 3.1 A - Little Delay FfAiii. Major Right Leg 10 1348 J 2.7 A- Little Delay 1 0.1 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 2.5 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.0b 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:11 PM NORTH 5TH AVE&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity In vehicles per hour. Right and Through Movements Share a Lane 1 1 Major Right Leg ` Major Left Leg 1 1 Right and Through Movements Share a Lane Minor Bottom Leg 1 i MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:17 PM BAXTER&WEST WALMART APP SHORT TERM CONDITION INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=30 MPH [SATURATION VOLUMES <— Grade=-2% E-- 35 1800 (2 LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 182 Major Left Leg SHARED LEFT LANE Major Left Leg 41 Grade= 2% Major Right Leg 103 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 3 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft 1 1 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade= NO SHARED LANES 6 0 NOTE: a SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 4 0 Saturation Volumes are use to Proof LARGE Q eueulate Free Statesllity when th POPULATION Major Street Left Turn Lane ' is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru I right left thru left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 103 3 182 35 149 91 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 103 3' 182 35 149 91 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 103 3 1 182 35 164 100 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 322 vph 105 vph Critical Gap: 6.5 seconds 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 690 pcph 1226 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movemenig:88 - Movement Capacity: 606 pcph 1226 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right L6g Conflicting Flow: 106 vph Critical Gap: 5.0 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1526 pcph Movement Capacity: 1526 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 88.1 % Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) 87.8% SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Movements Volume I Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Dela Left From Minor Bottom Leg 164 606 - 8.1 B -Short Delays 6.3 sec. Right From Minor Bottom Leg 100 1226 - 3.2 A- Liftle Delay Left From Major Right Leg 182 1526 - 2.7 A- Little Delay 2.2 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 3.9 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:17 PM BAXTER&WEST WALMART APP SHORT TERM CONDITION MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. 2 1 Left and Right movements use Exclusive Lane MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:18 PM BAXTER&WEST WALMART APP FUTURE CONDITION INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=30 MPH SATURATION VOLUMES <— Grade=-2% <-- 27 ( 1800 (2 LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 132 Major Left Leg SHARED LEFT LANE Major Left Leg Grade= 2% Major Right Leg 54 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 3 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft 1 7 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade= NO SHARED LANES 0 5 NOTE: 0% 8 Saturation Volumes are use SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. to calculate Probability of LARGE Queue Free States when th POPULATION Major Street Left Turn Lane Is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru right left thru I left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 54 3 132 27 98 68 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 54 3, 132 27 98 68 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 54 3 132 27 108 75 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 215 vph 56 vph Critical Gap: 6.5 seconds 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 795 pcph 1298 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movement:92 - Movement Capacity: 729 pcph 1298 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right eeg Conflicting Flow: 57 vph Critical Gap: 5.0 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1610 pcph Movement Capacity: 1610 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 91.8% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) 91.7% SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Movements Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Dela Left From Minor Bottom Leg 108 729 - 5.8 B-Short Delays 4.6 sec. Right From Minor Bottom Leg 75 1298 - 2.9 A-Little Delay Left From Major Right Leg 132 1610 2.4 A- Little Delay 2.0 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 3.1 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:18 PM BAXTER&WEST WALMART APP FUTURE CONDITION MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. r r 1 1 Left and Right movements use Exclusive Lane r i l r r r 1 r MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:27 PM C:\UNSIG3\BAXNWAL.INT BAXTER&NEW N-S ROAD SHORT TERM CONDITION INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=30 MPH SATURATION VOLUMES F-- Grade= 2% 9 1800 (2 LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Major Left Leg 216 Major Left Leg EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE 1 Grade=-2% Major Right Leg 35 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 149 NO RIGHT TURN de= S S RADIUS<50 ft 1 8 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade X X SHARED LANES 1 6 NOTE: a SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 8 Saturation Volumes are use LARGE to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when th POPULATION Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru right left thru left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 35 149 154 9 107 _78 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 35 149 154 9 107 78 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 35 1 149 1 216 9 1 118 86 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 273 vph 110 vph 1 Critical Gap: 6.5 seconds 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 736 pcph 1219 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movemenig:85 - Movement Capacity: 623 pcph 1219 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right Leg ' Conflicting Flow: 184 vph Critical Gap: 5.0 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1401 pcph Movement Capacity: 1401 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 84.6% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes MovementsShared Volume Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service B -Short Delays Ave Delay Left From Minor Bottom Leg 118 623 784 6.26.2 sec. Right From Minor Bottom Leg 86 1219 784 6.2 B -Short Delays Left From Major Right Leg 216 1401 - 3.0 A-Little Delay 2.J sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 3.5 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:27 PM C:\UNSIG3\BAXNWAL.INT BAXTER&NEW N-S ROAD SHORT TERM CONDITION MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. 1 r r 1 Right and Left Movements Share one Lane 1 r r r 1 r r r r MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:28 PM C:\UNSIG3\BAXNWAL.INT BAXTER&NEW N-S ROAD FUTURE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=30 MPH SATURATION VOLUMES. E— Grade= 2% <-- 10 1800 (2 LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. 279 Major Left Leg rEXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE Major Left Leg Grade=-2% Major Right Leg 27 Major Right Leg NO RIGHT TURN LANE (-4NO ACCEL. LANE 98 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft 5 6 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade= X X SHARED LANES 2 3 NOTE: 0% Saturation Volumes are use SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. to calculate Probability of ❑LARGE Queue Free States when th POPULATION Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru right left thru left right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 27 98 199 10 47 57 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 27 98 199 10 47 57 PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 27 98 279 10 52 63 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 285 vph 76 vph ' Critical Gap: 6.5 seconds 5.5 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 724 pcph 1267 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movemen8:81 - Movement Capacity: 589 pcph 1267 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right L1eg Conflicting Flow: 125 vph Critical Gap: 5.0 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1495 pcph Movement Capacity: 1495 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 81.3% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Movements Volume I Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay Left From Minor Bottom Leg 52 589 833 5.0 B -Short Delays 5.0 sec. Right From Minor Bottom Leg 63 1267 833 5.0 B -Short Delays Left From Major Right Leg 279 1495 - 3.0 A-Little Delay 2.9 sec. Average Total Delay for the entire intersection: 3.0 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.0b 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 07, 1997 04:28 PM C:\UNSIG3\BAXNWAL.INT BAXTER&NEW N-S ROAD FUTURE CONDITIONS MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. i1 Right and Left Movements Share one Lane 1 i 1 1 1 1 MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 08, 1997 01:54 PM NEW INTERNAL ROAD APPROACH&OAK FUTURE CONDITIONS K MART COMBINED APP INTERSECTION GEOMETRY PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH S=STOP CONTROL Minor Top Leg 1 Y=YIELD CONTROL SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Grade= SHARED LANES X X 0% RADIUS<50 ft S S S NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN NO ACCELERATION LANE �, NO RIGHT TURN LANE E— Grade=-2%Major Right Leg LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE (MULTI LANES) EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE LT SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Major Left Leg Grade=-2% —� NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCELERATION LANE NO RIGHT TURN STOP OR YIELD SIGN S S S RADIUS<50 ft Grade= X X SHARED LANES 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. ❑ LARGE POPULATION Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ' Major Left Leg Major Right Leg Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg left thru right left thru right left thru right left thru right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 120 270 35 20 140 10 25 10 15 70 15 300 PEAK HOUR FACTORS '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 120 270 35 20 140 10 25 10 15 70 15 300 . PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 120 270 35 20 140 10 28 11 17 77 17 330 VOLUMES IN PCPH Minor Top Leg (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) AND SATURATION VOLUME 3 ' 0 7 7 10 120 ' <-- 140 18o Major Right Leg 20 120 Major Left Leg J80o 270 200 35 ' 2 1 1 NOTE: 8 1 7 Saturation Volumes are used to calculate Probability of Queue Free States when the Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 08, 1997 01:54 PM NEW INTERNAL ROAD APPROACH&OAK FUTURE CONDITIONS K MART COMBINED APP CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT TURN FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 153 vph 75 vph Critical Gap: 5.7 seconds 5.7 seconds Headway Gap: 2.6 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity. 1149 pcph 1263 pcph Movement Capacity: 1149 pcph 1263 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 98.5% 73.9% LEFT TURN FROM: Major Right Leg Major Left Leg Conflicting Flow: 305 vph 150 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 seconds 5.6 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1166 pcph 1418 pcph Movement Capacity: 1166 pcph 1418 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 98.3% 91.5% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA NA THROUGH FROM: Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg Conflicting Flow: 578 vph 590 vph Critical Gap: 6.8 seconds 6.8 seconds Headway Gap: 3.3 seconds 3.3 seconds Potential Capacity: 478 pcph 469 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movementei.90 0.90 Movement Capacity: 430 pcph 422 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: 97.4% 96.0% LEFT TURN FROM. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Top Leg ' Conflicting Flow: 575 vph 560 vph Critical Gap: 7.3 seconds 7.3 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 3.4 seconds Potential Capacity: 433 pcph 443 pcph Major Left, Minor Through, Impedance Factor(p"): 0.86 0.88 Major Left, Minor Through,Adjusted Impedance Factor(Q'p0 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding MovementED.66 0.89 Movement Capacity: 286 pcph 395 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Minor Bottom Leg Volume Capacity Capacity I DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 28 286 - 13.9 C - Normal Delays Ave Delay Through 11 430 693 5.4 B - Short Delays 9.7 sec. Right Turn 17 1149 693 5.4 B -Short Delays Minor Top Leg Volume Capacity Shared Minor DELAY Level Of Service Left Turn 77 395 - 11.3 C - Normal Delays Ave Delay Through 17 4221 1151 4.5 A - Little Delay 5.7 seC. 1 Right Turn 330 1263 1151 I_ 4.5 A - Little Delay i ' Major Street Left Turns Volume Capacity 1 DELAY Level Of Service Ave Delay MaJor Left Leg 120 1418 2.8 A- Little Delay 0.8 sec. Major Right Leg 20 1166 f 3.1 A - Little Delay 0.4 sec. iAverage Total Delay for the entire intersection: 3.1 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 08, 1997 01:54 PM NEW INTERNAL ROAD APPROACH&OAK FUTURE CONDITIONS K MART COMBINED APP MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based Minor Top Leg on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. ' Right and Through Movements Share a Lane 1 1 Major Right Leg ' Major Left Leg ' 1 1 Right and Through Movements Share a Lane ' Minor Bottom Leg 1 I 1 1 t MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 08, 1997 02:14 PM NORTH 5TH AVE&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM ALTERNATE-NO 5th CONNECTION INTERSECTION GEOMETRY VOLUMES IN PCPH S=STOP CONTROL (PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES) Y=YIELD CONTROL AND PREVAILING SPEED=35 MPH [SATURATION VOLUMES E— Grade=-2% <-- 160 1800 (Mufti LANES) SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. or Left Leg 150 Major Left Leg Ma EXCLUSIVE LEFT LANE j _- Grade= 2% Major Right Leg 100 Major Right Leg ' NO RIGHT TURN LANE �NO ACCEL. LANE 115 NO RIGHT TURN S S RADIUS<50 ft 7 5 STOP OR YIELD SIGN Grade= NO SHARED LANES 7 5 NOTE: 0% SIGHT DISTANCE O.K. Saturation Volumes are use to calculate Probability of ❑IARGE POPULATION Queue Free States when th Major Street Left Turn Lane is shared. Minor Bottom Leg Minor Bottom Leg VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Major Left Leg Major Right LegMinor Bottom Leg thru I right left thru left I right UNADJUSTED VOLUMES 100 115 150 160 70 50 PEAK HOUR FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF ADJUSTED VOLUMES 100 115, 150 160 70 50 ' PCE ADJUSTED VOLUMES 100 115 1 150 160 77 55 CAPACITY ANALYSIS ' Minor Bottom Leg LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN Conflicting Flow: 468 vph 108 vph ' Critical Gap: 7.3 seconds 5.7 seconds Headway Gap: 3.4 seconds 2.6 seconds Potential Capacity: 512 pcph 1214 pcph Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movemen*89 - Movement Capacity: 453 pcph 1214 pcph LEFT TURN FROM Major Right Log ' Conflicting Flow: 215 vph Critical Gap: 5.6 seconds Headway Gap: 2.1 seconds Potential Capacity: 1306 pcph ' Movement Capacity: 1306 pcph Probability of Queue Free State: (exclusive) 88.5% Probability of Queue Free State: (shared) NA ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS X indicates shared lanes Shared Movements Volume I Capacity Capacity DELAY Level Of Service ' Left From Minor Bottom Leg 77 453 - 9.6 B -Short Delays Ave Dela Right From Minor Bottom L -55 1214 3.1 6.9 sec. A - Little Delay Left From Major Right Leg 150 1306 3.1 A- Little Delay 1.5 sec. ' Average Total Delayfor the entire intersection: 2.5 seconds MARVIN &ASSOCIATES WINUNSIG version 3.Ob 1994 HCM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS March 08, 1997 02:14 PM NORTH 5TH AVE&OAK FUTURE TRAFFIC SYSTEM ALTERNATE-NO 5th CONNECTION MINOR STREET QUEUE LENGTHS NOTE: ' AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Queue Lengths are displayed by lane groupings-not by movement 95th Percentile Queue Lengths according to the 1994 HCM for a 15 minute counting period based on saturation and capacity in vehicles per hour. 1 1 Left and Right movements use Exclusive Lanes it APPENDIX"D„ PEDESTRIAN GAP PREDICTION MODEL 1 1 1 � 1 1 Page 42 GAP PREDICTION PROGRAM R. MARVIN 1 NEGATIVE EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION FORMULA: PROBABILITY OF GAP>CRITICAL GAP=e^-u x t WHERE: e=NATURAL EXPONENT = 2.71828 u=RATE OF ARRIVAL= VOLUME13600 t=CRITICAL GAP Site Data: Proposed Bozeman Safeway-Front Isle Crossing Peak Hour Volume= 320 Both Directions X-ing Distance= 28 feet Critical Gap(t)= 11 seconds Gap Prediction Calculations: Critical % No. Gaps Inrement Total Gap(t) P(G>t) >=t Time Gap T #Gaps 0 100.0% 320 1 91.5% 293 14 3469 27.21687 2 83.7% 268 37 3455 24.902 3 76.6% 245 57 3418 22.78402 4 70.1% 224 73 3361 20.84618 5 64.1% 205 86 3288 19.07315 ' 6 58.7% 188 96 3202 17.45093 7 53.7% 172 104 3106 15.96668 8 49.1% 157 110 3002 14.60867 ' 9 44.9% 144 114 2893 13.36616 10 41.1% 132 116 2779 12.22933 1 37:13°/a:: 1.20: 1.17 266..3 11;1892: 12 34.4% 110 118 2545 10.23752 ' 13 31.5% 101 117 2428 9.366795 14 28.8% 92 116 2311 8.570124 15 26.4% 84 114 2195 7.841212 16 24.1% 77 111 2081 7.174295 ' 17 22.1% 71 108 1970 6.564102 18 20.2% 65 105 1862 6.005807 19 18.5% 59 102 1757 5.494997 20 16.9% 54 98 1655 5.027633 ' 21 15.5% 49 94 1557 4.600019 22' 14.1% 45 90 1463 4.208775 23 12.9% 41 87 1372 3.850807 24 11.8% 38 83 1285 3.523285 ' 25 10.8% 35 79 1203 3.22362 26 9.9% 32 75 1124 2.949443 27 9.1% 29 72 1048 2.698585 28 8.3% 27 68 977 2.469063 ' 29 7.6% 24 64 909 2.259062 30 6.9% 22 61 845 2.066923 40 2.9% 9 517 784 13.09376 ' 50 1.2% 4 266 266 5.38301 316.242 Pedestrian Delay: (T-t)/T x 100 ' T= 3469 seconds t= 1317 seconds ' Delay= 62.0% Number of Gaps > 11 Seconds = 120 Ultimate Pedestrian Capacity = 761 per hour Ped Demand = 500 per hour