Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93 - Traffic Impact Study - Bridger Creek Subdivision STORY MILL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY FOR GOLF COURSE PARTNERS, INC. APRIL, 1993 Prepared By: Morrison-Maierle/CSSA 901 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 Written By: Keith S. Belden, P.E. o` �`.•••"°" •. d,'%, Reviewed By: Jack R. Schunke, P.E. KEITH S •'•.y Tc BELDEN IC692ES � MM# 2089 .002.010.0310Mo!nso Maierle/rSSAL PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to review existing traffic and levels of service on Story Mill Road and to assess the impacts from the build-out of Bridger Creek Subdivision and the 18-hole golf course associated with it. The basis for this study are traffic counts collected between November 13, 1992, and November 20, 1992, and trip generation estimates developed from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition, 1987. SUMMARY Story Mill Road is currently operating at a Level of Service A (LOS A) and may operate at a LOS B for short periods of time. Phase 1 of Bridger Creek Subdivision will add 109 vehicles per hour (vph) to an existing load of 125 vph. With the increased loading from Phase 1, Story Mill Road will operate at a LOS B, with the increased traffic being substantially mitigated by improvements to Story Mill Road and McIlhatten Road. It is assumed that the golf course will be operating at 75% ultimate capacity at the conclusion of Phase 1. Phases 2 and 3 will increase the vehicular loading on Story Mill Road by 167 vph and 258 vph respectively, to 292 vph and 383 vph respectively. With the addition of Phase 2, Story Mill Road shall continue to operate at a LOS B. At full build-out of Bridger Creek Subdivision, Story Mill Road may operate at a LOS C during peak hours, with a reserve capacity of 165 vph. An analysis of the intersection of Story Mill Road with Bridger Canyon Drive was performed based upon the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985. The existing LOS for this unsignalized intersection was examined, together with a capacity determination for each successive phase. A review of the intersection worksheets indicates that all four legs have an existing LOS A. The south ,leg of the intersection eventually reaches a LOS C with f_u il build-out, while all other legs remain at LOS A. Bridger Canyon Road is currently operating at a LOS C at peak hours during the months of ski operation. Traffic counts by Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT ) reveal that there were 390 vph during the peak hour on November 19, 1992. Bridger Creek Subdivision will add 414 vph to Bridger Canyon Drive for a total of 804 vph. Therefore, Bridger Canyon Drive may operate at a LOS D ( =1, 048 vph) for short periods of time. Phase 2 will add vp__ to Bridger Canyon Drive peak hour traffic for a total of 713 vph and operate between a LOS C ( =691 vph) and LOS D. Bridg- er Canyon Drive will operate at a LOS C with the build-out of Phase 1 based upon Phase 1 generating 265 vph for a peak of 655 Morri Maier leNCSSA f-k vph on Bridger Canyon Road. If we use the existing flow rate of 222 vph in lieu of the one day peak of 390 vph to assess service levels, one can show that the Level of Service does not drop below LOS C. (414 vph +222 vph = 636 vph < 691 vph = LOS C) . TRAFFIC ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS. Story Mill Road is a two-lane County paved road that runs north from Bridger Canyon Drive and which inter- sects with McIlhatten Road north of Bridger Creek. From this intersection Story Mill Road continues north beyond the city landfill as an improved County gravel road. McIlhattan Road is also an improved County gravel road. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS. "Conditions of Approval" for the approved Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 of Bridger Creek Subdivision and for the opening of the golf course require that Story Mill Road be improved to a 24-foot wide County paved road with a 3 or 4 foot paved shoulder for a bicycle lane, north from Bridger Canyon Drive to the intersection with McIlhattan Road. McIlhattan Road shall be improved likewise west from Story Mill Road to the subdivision boundary and shall be improved from the subdivision boundary to the intersection of Manley Road, to a County gravel standard. EXISTING TRAFFIC. Traffic counts supplied by Gallatin County for the period of November 13, 1992, to November 20, 1992, show a weekday average of 915 vpd and peak hour average of 96 vph. Our report used an actual peak hour traffic volume of 125 vph adjust- ed to reflect a 15-minute peak period within the peak hour. We elected to use this adjusted peak hour believing it to be more appropriate for urban conditions (Bridger Canyon Drive) and more conservative when analyzing rural traffic (Story Mill Road) . Traffic to the City of Bozeman Landfill contributes 27% or 246 ADT ( = 25 vph) of the traffic experienced on Story Mill Road. We assumed that each load contributed two trips or vehicles per day to the traffic count. LANDFILL PERCENT OF TRAFFIC COUNT LANDFILL LOAD VEHICLE EXISTING DATE (ADT) COUNT COUNT TRAFFIC 11/16/92 1013 162 324 32% 11/17/92 958 126 252 26% 11/18/92 798 104 208 26% 11/19/92 890 100 200 22% MDOT completed a two day traffic count over November 19 and 20, 1992, at a point south of Bridger Creek Trailer Court on Bridger Canyon Drive. They recorded an ADT of 4330 vpd and a peak hour of 390 vph between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Historically, the highest hourly volumes have occurred in January with an average-'of' '408 morrmaser NCSS1� Maierle l� J`1 vph with as many as 636 vph occurring between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday. Existing traffic splits range from 60-40 to 83-17 during the afternoon peak hour in the ski season. We used a 70-30 split for the Story Mill Road-Bridger Canyon Road intersection analysis on the assumption that the weekday peak from the subdivision does not conflict with the weekend or weekday peak generated by the Bridger Bowl ski resort. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service criteria address physical constraints relating to mobility and accessibility when rural roads are considered and address delay times when analyzing unsignalized intersections. Level of Service is divided into six categories for rural two- lane highways and unsignalized intersections from A to F as follows: RURAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS Level of Service A is the highest quality of service a particular class of highway can provide. It is a condition of free flow where there is little or no restriction on speed or maneuverability caused by the presence of other vehicles. Oper- ating speed is in the highest range and vehicle density is low. because speeds are high and volumes low, the occurrence rate of some kinds of accidents may be higher than at other service levels and the total economic cost of providing the service may be excessive. Two lanes typically provide operating speeds of 60 mph or higher and 75% of the passing maneuvers can be completed with little or no delay. Under ideal conditions, a service volume of 400 passenger vph, total two-way can be achieved. Level of Service B is a zone of stable flow. However, operating speed is beginning to be restricted by other traffic. The re- striction on maneuverability is still negligible, and there is little probability of major reduction in speed or flow rate. This level of service approximates typical design volumes for high volume type rural highways, including freeways. Two lanes typically provide operating speeds of 50 mph or greater and volumes may reach 45% capacity with continuous passing sight distance. Volumes of 900 passenger cars per hour, total two way, can be carried under ideal conditions. Level of Service C is still a zone of stable flow but at this volume and density level, most drivers are becoming restricted in their freedom to select speed, change lanes, or pass. Operating speeds are still in the range of 2/3 to 3/4 of the maximum. This level of service is frequently selected as being an appropriate criterion for design purposes, particularly for urban freeways where the cost of providing the higher service levels during peak MorrisonY(;9SN Maierle J� _J periods may be prohibitive. Two lane traffic still provides a stable flow. Operating speeds are 40 mph or above. The total volume under ideal conditions equals 70% of capacity with contin- uous passing sight distance or 1400 passenger vph, two-way. Level of Service D approaches unstable flow. Tolerable average operating speeds are maintained, but are subject to considerable and sudden variation. Freedom to maneuver and driving comfort are low because land density has increased and the probability of accidents has also increased. Most drivers would probably con- sider this service level unsatisfactory. Two lanes of traffic are approaching unstable flow. Operating speeds of approximately 35 mph and two-direction volumes of 85% of capacity are encoun- tered with continuous passing opportunity. This level of service provides approximately 1, 700 passenger cars per hour total two- way traffic under ideal conditions. The upper limit of Level of Service E is the capacity of the facility. Operation in this zone is unstable, speeds and flow rates fluctuate, and there is little independence of speed selec- tion or maneuver. Since headways are short and operating speeds subject to rapid fluctuation, driving comfort is low and accident potential high. Although circumstances may make operation of these facilities under these conditions necessary, it is clearly undesirable and should be avoided whenever feasible. Traffic volumes under ideal conditions for two lane, two-way total, is approximately 2,000 passenger vph. Level of Service E may never be attained and operation may go directly from level D to level F. Level of Service F describes forced flow operations after the density has exceeded optimum. Speed and rate of flow are below the levels attained in level E and may, for short time periods, drop to zero. Level of service F is forced, congested flow with unpredictable characteristics. The volume of two-way traffic falls below that of level E. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF EXPECTED DELAY TO (PCPH) SERVICE MINOR STREET TRAFFIC >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0-99 E Very long traffic delays a. F a. TABLE 10-3, HIGHWAY CAPACITY MorrisonyC;S Maierle sat a. When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which many cause severe congestion effecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvements to the intersection. The service flow rates for Story Mill Road and Bridger Canyon Drive are as follows: EXISTING IMPROVED BRIDGER SERVICE STORY MILL STORY MILL CANYON LEVEL ROAD ROAD ROAD LOS A 128 157 144 LOS B 264 324 375 LOS C 447 548 691 LOS D 660 810 1048 LOS E 1278 1568 2025 Our service flow rate calculations for Story Mill Road, included within the Appendix, were based upon rolling terrain with 80 percent of the road offering passing opportunities. MDOT esti- mates for Bridger Canyon Drive were based upon rolling terrain and 50 percent of the road offering passing opportunities. it As previously stated, Story Mill Road is operating at a LOS A with 125 vph and a reserve of 3 vph. It follows that Story Mill Road will operate at the following service levels and reserve capacities: PHASE SERVICE LEVEL RESERVE CAPACITY Phase 1 LOS B ( 234 vph) 90 vph Phase 1 & 2 LOS B (292 vph) 32 vph Phase 1 - 3 LOS C (383 vph) 165 vph (Table A-1 in the Appendix summarizes the aformentioned informa- tion. ) MDOT has stated that the existing flow rate for Bridger Canyon Road is 222 vph which is LOS B with a reserve capacity of 153 vph. Peak hour traffic volumes as high as 636 vph ( LOS C) have been recorded during the ski season. Applying a peak hour factor of 10 percent times the ADT generated by Bridger Creek Subdivision and summing this product to the average flow of 222 vph we can estimate the service flow rates on Bridger Drive as the subject project develops. MorrisonyC;S, � Malerle I�Jsat_J PEAK HOUR SERVICE PHASE ADT (vph) FLOW RATES LOS 1 2649 265 487 C 1&2 3228 323 545 C 1-3 4141 414 636 C As previously stated Bridger Canyon Drive can be expected to operate at a LOS D for short periods of time but only during the ski season and* then only if the peak hours for the development and the resort coincide. This is unlikely to occur to any great extent inasmuch as the expected resort peaks will generally occur on weekends as opposed to a weekday peak for the development. The intersection of Story Mill Road with Bridge Canyon Drive will operate at LOS A for the turning movements from Bridger Canyon Drive and for all of the movements from the north leg of Story Mill Road. The service level from the south leg of Story Mill Road will progress from a LOS A with an average reserve capacity of 442 passenger cars per hour (pcph) to a level of LOS C with a reserve capacity of 257 pcph. We believe that this drop in service level to be insignificant due to the fact that less than 15 pcph are expected to use this leg of the intersection under average conditions . Complete intersection analyses are provided in the Appendix. TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip generation rates were developed from the ITE Trip Genera- tion, Fourth Edition 1987 and from generally accepted rates as used by the City of Bozeman Planning and Engineering Staff. A rate of 9 tripends per day per unit was used for all of the residential areas. The raw acreage in Phases 2 and 3 and in portions of Phase 1 were converted to residential units by assum- ing that 25 percent of the gross area was utilized for roads, parking lots, etc. and that an average of 5 units per acre could be realized on the remaining land. The rate of 9 tripends per day represents trips generated by the residential units including service vehicles. Bridger Creek Subdivision will generate 3, 177 residential ADT with Phase 1 = 1, 188 ADT, Phase 2 = 744 ADT and Phase 3 = 1, 215 ADT. The commercial areas of Phase 1 utilized data from Section 770, Business Parks, page 1041 from ITE Trip Generation manual to estimate trip generation. Morrisony(;S, _j Maierle J Ln (T) = 0. 88 Ln (X) + 5.46 where: T = Number of Trips X = Acres (= 7.11 Ac) Ln = Natural Logrithm Ln (T) = 0. 88 Ln (7. 11 ) + 5.46 T = 1321 ADT The trip generation rate for the light industrial areas of Phase 1 was also developed from the ITE manual and is again based upon acreage. From Section 130, General Light Industry on page 118, trip generation for the light industrial is as follows: T = 42.44 (X) + 263 where T and X are defined as stated previously. T = 42.22 ( 5. 69 Ac) + 263 = 503 ADT Trip generation estimates for the golf course are based upon an analysis of Valley View and Riverside Country Clubs completed for a previously submitted conditional use permit for a development in the Bozeman Area. The conditional use permit dated April, 1991 was subsequently approved by the local governing budget.. The former study estimated a maximum of 90 group rounds of golf per day with an average of 3 golfers per group. Therefore a maximum of 270 golfers per day can be expected to have tee times. If we use an average of 1. 5 golfers/vehicle then a maximum of 180 vehicles per day would be generated by the golf course. 90 group/rounds x 3 golfers group _ 1. 5 golfers/vehicle = 180 vpd In addition, the driving range and service personnel will gener- ate 50 and 20 vehicles per day, respectively. Therefore a total of 250 vehicles per day would be generated as a result of de- veloping the golf course. This equates to 500 tripends per day: GOLF COURSE 180 vpd DRIVING RANGE 50 vpd SERVICE 20 vpd TOTAL 250 vpd x 2 tripends/vehicle = 500 ADT The previously mentioned study assumed that 60 percent of the golf course use was generated internally. We have assumed an internal generation rate of 40 percent which represents 6 . 3 percent of the future residential traffic loading. Mated cslsa Maierle ..77 500 ADT x 40% = 3177 residential ADT = 6.3% Golf Course ADT PHASE 1 75 PHASE 2 50 PHASE 3 75 200 ADT We also assumed that approximately 20 percent of the traffic generated by development would be internal to the project using as destinations the golf course and amenities provided by the commercial areas . We assumed that one roundtrip per day per residential unit would not leave the subdivision, therefore, one roundtrip = 2 tripends which represents 2/9 or 22% of the total residential ADT. We extrapolated this to include all trips generated within the development and included the golf course generated trips within this 20 percent. Therefore traffic generated by Bridger Creek Subdivision have as their destination the commercial area within Phase 1 and never leave the development to impact the roads serving the project. Several other assumptions were made in deciding how to "load" Story Mill Road and McIlhatten Road with the traffic generated by the subject project. 1 . 4.5 percent of the traffic to utilize McIlhatten Road exter- nal to the subdivision and 0. 5 percent to travel Story Mill Road north of the intersection with McIlhatten Road. 2. Phase 1 traffic was allocated 60 percent directly to Bridger Canyon Drive and 40 percent to Bridger Canyon Drive via Story Mill Road. The traffic generation rates and distribution of ADT' s are summa- rized in Figures 1 through 3 in the Appendix. CONCLUSION This project will cause a drop in the Level of Service on Story Mill Road from LOS A/B to LOS C with a reserve capacity of 165 vph at full build-out in 10 to 15 years. It is conceivable that at the time of full buildout the City landfill may be closing down thereby increasing the reserve capacity by approximately 25 vph. Our calculations would also indicate that the Story Mill Road/Bridger Canyon Road intersection will function at or above a LOS C. The increased traffic should not significantly effect the operation of Bridger Canyon Road, except for the occasion when a higher then normal peak hour event, related to the Bridger Bowl Morris _J Maierle Ski Resort, occurs during the weekday coinciding with a peak hour sponsored by the development for which the highway will operate for short time periods at a LOS D. In general Bridger Canyon Road will operate at a LOS B or C. c:\keith2\traffic Materle/r�`�` Maierle I�JJ APPENDIX PROJECT: � � C ""t t v � C.!E a MOi ■��0� BY: i-/C�,� DATE ��,t?J_g3 PROD.NO. Maierl ' CHK: DATE PAGE: ` OF G�vc.n l �WJ - t�1 \GYleS W \J Z` YN� GCC"c, Zo`t,o no ti 1 C7 r v nn ro. c Gc� r s" ©Yll tt-eta -9Z V e.c-c P�AF 0`7 t414 where ; C L 0 S C o.S? Coe- L0� D C -A t4r L05 e e, 2-0 .ulJ C1J rJtnSS\f\ 1. 0,� �Tc.\Z) a.�Z- P� a-9 r t t` 1 -ne-s Gn'>- 3 ,3 LDS '7 ? C Los b MA PROJECT: orriso� 4 8Y: DATE PROD.NO. uiErle CSS i CHK: DATE PAGE: OF �4\4 SSA = Z.�a0 Y,_ 4� c�.9 CXD Y., O.'Z.3 e�.9 q o.--t S u o S 1 = ZcAQ •,F�. Sib 2aov ©,s't Y., 0.9-4 x o,�ts x 0,��3� = c. o •,din 23c00 ©,9q o,9q x 0,ae x o ,S43�1 �,�-eA S r,,r't Lc S ma PROJECT: 0firi`o� BY: DATE PROD.NO. aierle '(;SS4t CHK: DATE PAGE: ' OF c.a\� eY., 4-W0 �Z' aY\e-5 w\4\ -\ C. C'A t S 1 N,Ca w C) ,9 z Las - � d.8a 5-zQ P PROJECT: Morrison BY: DATE PROJ.NO. M�'ii rie I CHK: DATE PAGE: OF ri U Z p� ri � o ? IT W 7' G (� Z IJ, LP � M 4 U LA LL o � U � dr ll4 BRIDGER CREEK SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY- PHASE I FUTURE PHASE 3 lg 9 S� ti oalGOLF COURSE FUTURE 375 ADT o McLLHATTEN 23ADT PHASE 2 41ci c'3 STORY MILL 2ADT LEGEND `y . 9rT Fti 563 ADT'S BETWEEN NODES �40 �,S 23 DIRECTION-SPECIFIC ADT 2 NODE to B9 + N to Q � O re) cr J _J } O ir PHASE I N 3012 ADT RESIDENTIAL 1188 ADT to N .COMMERCIAL 1321 ADT 1040 N INDUSTRIAL 503 ADT != 40 4 d%-.` v GOLF COURSE 75 ADT cD INTERNAL 412 ADT MCILHATTEN 136ADT STORY MILL 15 ADT ooF o m o to m BRIDGER CANYON DRIVE FIG. + tt'tIIJ LN ( HttK 5UbUIV151UN TRAFFIC STUDY-PHASE ia2 FUTURE PHASE 3 �9 .So , 3�. -, GOLF COURSE Do 425 ADT McILHATTEN 23 ADT PHASE 2 �� STORY MILL 2ADT LEGEND 22.98 AC.x 0.75 x 5 units/Ac 4i� 9 x 9 ADT= 774 ADT �y 9e 563 ADT'S BETWEEN NODES McILHATTEN 35 ADT 4,'T STORY MILL 4 ADT F'b 3 yOq 23 �,. DIRECTION-SPECIFICADT GOLF-COURSE 50 ADT S2 INTERNAL106 O NODE Q O a 0 M � J J y- PHASE I = 3012 ADT RESIDENTIAL 1188 ADT 04 tD a COMMERCIAL 1321 ADT 1040 N o INDUSTRIAL 503 ADT 40% GOLF COURSE 75 ADT INTERNAL ' 412 ADT McILHATTEN 1 36 ADT STORY MILL 15ADT m O BRIDGER CANYON DRIVE FIG, 2 BRIDGER CREEK SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY-PHASE 1,2,3 PHASE 3 36.01 Ac.x 0.75 x 5 units/Ac. x 9ADT = 1215 ADT /F V McILHATTEN 55 ADT S0 STORY MILL 6 ADT °l/ GOLFCOURSE 75 ADT INTERNAL 166 SS O/ GOLF COURSE ti 39 500 ADT O o N McILHATTEN 23ADT PHASE 2 STORY MILL 2ADT LEGEND 22.98 Ac.x 0.75 x 5 units/Ac. .y �4 `�\ x 9 ADT = 774 ADT c/<y 563 ADTS BETWEEN NODES McILHATTEN 35 ADT 9T� STORY MILL 4 ADT F'�' 23 DIRECTION-SPECIFIC ADT GOLF COURSE 50ADT INTERNAL 106 NODE 0 N J J PHASE I N N 3012 ADT RESIDENTIAL 1188 ADT N COMMERCIAL 1321 ADT 1040 N INDUSTRIAL 503 ADT -�- 40 % GOLF COURSE 75ADT ao INTERNAL 412ADT McILHATTEN 136 ADT STORY MILL 15ADT m N O � tD O ID BRIDGER CANYON DRIVE FIG. 3 10-34 URBAN STREETS t--4 to WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page I Location: Name: sc-*\at�cc- HOURLY VOLUMES Grade STOPF1 3 1 '? N== YIELDE] V12 VI I VIO N V6 3 N== V5 N V Grade % Grade V1 major road V 2 T>Z),K>6EZ V 3 (,S T 0 p 0 N== V7VSVI YIELD minor road 7-1 Date of counts: Time Period: Average Running Speed: PHF: Grade VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 9 10 11 12 Volume(vph) 88 Z1 +64 zo g Z Z-3 -1 ( 1 13 Vol.(pcph),see Table 10-1 zS -771 -3 VOLUMES IN PCPH 3 -7 J L NA V12 V11 vio V6 NA vs V4 NA vi • V2 NA V3 v UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 CX\ST1N � WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1:RT From Minor Street I Vq V12 Conflicting Flows,V, 1/2 V3+V2=V,q 1/2 V6+V5=Vc12 13,s + 66 = \oZ vph 1.S + Z03 = ZoS vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) G,S (sec) CO,S (sec) Potential Capacity, cp(Fig. 10-3) cPq= e\o pcph cp32= -- Zc7 pcph Percent of cP Utilized (vq/cPq)X 100= 3 % (v12/C,,2)X 100= 0.4 % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) Pq = 0.98 Pt2= 0.99 Actual Capacity,c,,, cmq=cPq= 8\� pcph cm12=cPt2— I-LO pcph STEP 2:LT From Major Street (— V4 —t V, Conflicting Flows,V, V3+V,=VC4 V6+V5=V'I Z-7 + &8 = Its vph 3 +203 = 20Co vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) S,S (sec) S,S (sec) Potential Capacity, cP(Fig. 10-3) cp4= 990 pcph cP1 = e80 pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v4/Cp4)X 100 (v1/cP1)X 100= 0,\ % Impedance Factor,P(Fig. 10-5) P4= o, PI = 01919 Actual Capacity,cm cm4=cp4= 9 9-0 pcph cm I =cP 1 = AP�O pcph STEP 3:TH From Minor Street I V8 I V I i Conflicting Flows,V, 1/2V3+V2+VI+V6+VS+V4=Vc8 1/2V6+VS+V4+V3+V2+V,=V,,,I 14 + Se-,+�_+ Z + Z03+ -10 + 3 + Z03 + -1 C1 = ' -1 9 vph 2'7 + 8 } 1 =g9 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) -7,S (sec) -1�S (sec) Potential Capacity,cP(Fig. 10-3) cP8=_'q C°C)pcph cP11 = AGS pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v8/cP8)X 100= 0•1- % (v,,/cPll)X 100= S % .Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P8= 0.99 P11 = 0.99 Actual Capacity, c,,, cm8=cP8 X P, X P4 cml l =cP1I X P, X P4 460 X 'ASS X 0,9 9 X a.9 co (pcph) o.9ca X o,99 (pcph) STEP 4:LT From Minor Street V7 LV 10 Conflicting Flows,V, V48(step 3)+V,I +V12=V,, V,„ (step 3)+V8+VI=V110 3-19+ i + 3 =383 vph -19-1_+ Z } 25 = tQ vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) 8.0 (sec) S •D (sec) Potential Capacity, cP(Fig. 10-3) cP,= 41S pcph cP10= qCO pcph Actual Capacity,cm cmI=Cp7 X P1 X P4 X P,I X P12 cmlo=cP10 X P4 X PI X P8 X PI -3 (o = 4ZS X 0,9 X 386 = At a X 0,9Co X 0. to X 0.99 X o,22(pcph) 0.99 X 0.99 X 2,95(pcph) 10-36 URBAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY vi+vi csti= — where 2 movements share a lane (vi/c.i)+(vi/c.) CSH� v"+vi+V�. — where 3 movements share a lane (vi/Cmi)+(vi/C,,,i)+(Vk/C.k) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) c,,,(pcph) c,,(pcph) CR CSH V LOS 7 95gco Cv 19 C-0 k 0 A 8 A 9 co MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) CSH(pcph) CR=CSH V LOS 10 11 ZA(.a ZA 12 MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,.4 Movement v(pcph) c,,,(pcph) CR Crn V LOS 1 A 4 __7 D COMMENTS: 10-34 URBAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page I Location: HOURLY VOLUMES Grade-2—,s % 31 Z- -7 N STOP0 N YIELDO V12 V11 V10 _7_�: 6 V Zo3 N % V 4 Grade OS Grade O/o major road V1 V2 50 T V 3. ..... STOP 0 FF N=F7 V7 Vs V9 YIELD 0 I i I Date of counts: minor road sa Time Period: Average Running Speed:— eorip PHF: Grade ADJUSTMENTS VOLUME .:�i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 VOLUME No. — Volume(vph) � Sot\ Z03 3 1�3 A So -1 7— — !M Vol. (pcph),see Table 10-1 k 2D Q I SS Z 3 VOLUMES IN PCPH Z. -1 U L NA V12 V11 V10 V6 NA Vs V4 NA v I V2 NA V3 V7 VS V9 7�:7S 7,0 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 P 0 ASC 1 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1:RT From Minor Street r V9 V 12 Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=V,12 ZS + 043 = \\'3 vph Z + Z03= Zo5 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) 5 (sec) (sec) Potential Capacity,cP(Fig. 10-3) cP9= 800 pcph CP12= TZO pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v9/cP9)X 100= % (v12/cp,2)X l00= 0•\ % Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P9= 0.9co p12= 0.59 Actual Capacity, q, cm9=cP9= 8� pcph cm12=cp12= 2Z(D pcph STEP 2:IT From Major Street (-- V4 --J V, Conflicting Flows,V, V3+V,=VC4 V6+V5=VC, Q() + a6 = \3$ vph 3 +Z03 = vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) SAS (sec) SIS (sec) Potential Capacity, cP(Fig. 10-3) cp4 = 9-10 pcph cP, = Sao pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v4/Cp4)X 100= 3 % (v,/Cp,)X 100= 0.\ % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P4= 0.93 P1 = 0.99 Actual Capacity, cn, cm4=Cp4 pcph c',,=cP, pcph STEP 3:TH From Minor Street Ve V„ Conflicting Flows,V, 1/2V3+V2+V,+V6+VS+V4=Vc8 1/2V6+VS+V4+V3+V2+V,=V,„ Z 9 + el ' + I + Z. +Zc�3+ 1_C + 3 + Z03 + "C> = 4S0 vph So + g_+ 1 =41 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) -1.5 (sec) -1-S (sec) Potential Capacity,cP(Fig. 10-3) cpa= Azo pcph cP,t = 40S pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v8/cP8)X 100= \ % (v„/cP„)X 100= O•S % .Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P8= 0,99 P„ = 0.9 Actual Capacity, c,,, cm8=cP8 X P, X P4 cm„ =cP„ X P, X P4 3s-? = 4Zt7 X 3�_=_40S X n.99_X G_.9_3 (pcph) o•g_X o.99 (pcph) STEP 4:LT From Minor Street V7 Lvio Conflicting Flows,V, Vice(step 3)+V„ +VI=Vc7 V'„ (step 3)+V8+V9=VC,o 4 SlD+ 'Z + 3 = 4SS vph AI + q +SS =533 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) i;.p (sec) _(sec) Potential Capacity,cP(Fig. 10-3) cP7= 3-i5 pcph cP,o= 340 pcph Actual Capacity,cm cni7=cP7 X P, X P4 X P„ X P,Z cmio=cPto X P4 X P, X P8 X P9 33a = '3ZS X 0,99X Z90 = 340 X a.93 X 0,93 X 0.99 X 0. (pcph) d•99 X 0.99 X o, G(PcPh) 10-36 URBAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY v;+vi c5fi= where 2 movements share a lane (Vi/Cmi)+(Vi/Cmi) Vi+Vk Vi+CSH= where 3 movements share a lane (Vi/Cm)+(Vi/Cmi)+(Vk/Cmk) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) c5H(pcph) cR=CSH — V LOS 7 zD 3-1S 0000 S8v A 8 g 42o (pv0 S9ca A 9 SS GOO Ca 00 S 4 S A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) CSH(pcph) CR=CSH — V LOS 10 -� 340 qOg -3 11 Z qos GOA ZAv-L tl� 12 i MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,.4 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) cR=cn, — v LOS 1 4 O COMMENTS: 10-34 URBAN S-rR=S WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page I Location: Name. HOURLY VOLUNfES Grade c-- /.I STOPF1 3 1 N== YIELD[D V12 V1 I V10 N V6 3 N== V5 ZAI>3 N== V4 \1 1,91 Grade o.S go \ — VI major road Grade 0 % STOP 0 N== V7 VS V1 YIELD 0 1 1 1 Date of counts: minor road 'zz' '4 "o Time Period: sToe:,f mk\ , Average Running Speed: PHF: Grade (0.S, % VOLUME ADJUSTNfENTS Movement No. 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume(vph) I eb c.0 1139 203 3 1 1 ( Cock Vol.(pcph),see Table 10-1 3 VOLUMES IN PCPH -7 .J NA V12 V11 VIO V6 NA v5-- V4 NA vi V 2 NA V3 v,7 VS V ZA UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 C� N AS CS \ 2 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1:RT From Minor Street V9 J V12 Conflicting Flows,V, 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+VS=V,12 30 + 88 = 1 t& vph Z + 2o3 = Z09 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) Co•S (sec) (-•S (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) CP9= BOO pcph Cp12= Z20 pcph Percent of cp Utilized (v9/cP9)X 100= 8 % (v12/cP1z)X 100= % Impedance Factor,P(Fig. 10-5) P9= 0•9A P12= 0199 Actual Capacity,cm Cm9=Cp9= BC)U pcph cm12=CP12= :2-Q pcph STEP 2:LT From Major Street (— V, —J VI Conflicting Flows,V, V3+V,=VC; V6+V5=V'I PO a.. B6 = \-A6vph S + Z01, = ZOO vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) SAS (sec) S s (sec) Potential Capacity, cp(Fig. 10-3) cpa = 9so pcph cP1 = S`�O pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v4/Cp4)X 100= \S % (vl/cp)X 100= 01 \ Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P4= 0•9O p1 = 0.99 Actual Capacity,cm Cm4=Cp4= 9'-0 pcph cm, =cpl = pcph STEP 3:TH From Minor Street Vg VII Conflicting Flows,V, 1/2V3+V2+VI+V6+VS+V4=Vc, 1/2V6+V5+VI+V3+V2+VI=Vc11 30 + be) + 1 + 2 } Zo3 } S 3 } 3 +1133 + ►S-3 = 4-18 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) (sec) (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) CP8= 410 pcph cpII = pcph Percent of cp Utilized (v8/cps)X 100= % (vI I/cp")X 100= ( % .Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P8= 0.99 Pit = 0.99 Actual Capacity,cm Cm8=cp8 X P1 X P, cm11 =cP11 X PI X P, 3toS = 41O X S-2,7 = 360 X c7.q 9 X o-90 (pcph) o•9 9 X o.9c- (pcph) STEP 4:IT From Minor Street V7 LVIO Conflicting Flows,V, Vc8(step 3)+V I i +V12=V,7 Vci i (step 3)+V8+V9=Vc10 4`16 + 3 + 3 =49'4 vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) P-0 (sec) 0 (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) cpI= 3cao pcph cP10= 31y pcph Actual Capacity,cm cm,=Cps X P1 X PI X PI I X P12 Cm10=cp,o X P,X PI X P8 X P9 3411 = 3C0c7 X 0.9 9 X Zto = 320 X 0.90 X 0.90X 0.99 X 0.99 (pcph) 0.99 X 99 X o.9 (pcph) 10-36 URBAN STREETS -c— WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY CSH� vi+vi — where 2 movements share a lane (vi/c,,,i)+(vi/c.i) CSH� V., +v i+Vk — where 3 movements share a lane (vi/c'.)+(vj/Cmj)+(Vk/C.k) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cn,(pcph) csH(pcph) CR=csH v LOS 7 'ZIA S14 S53 SZ9 Al 8 S S_1 I SA 41, 9 (10 co e0o S S3 _,1 19_E> MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,U,12 Movement F _v(pcph) c..(pcph) csH(pcph) CR=CSH — V LOS 10 z c} 3 Z_L 11 12 1 3_ 7 7 ZCD _T 3IZ5 1 S2CoI p MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 Movement v(pcph) c.(pcph) CR=Cm V LOS 1 l eec &7 5 A, 4 COMMENTS: 30-34 URBAN STREETS P 1-a A S ES 1 z 4 3 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 -� Location: Name.. gc-,N Qcc-- Crcc--\-- HOURLY VOLUMES Grade ma's °lo STOPQ -7 N== YIELD❑ V12 V11 V10 N i V6 3 N=0 Vs -ZO3 _ N== V4 \v-C Grade ° Soo Grade o.S % V,� major road H8 V2 �_� �Q10(o GA H+�y�, DZ1vG �34 V s rFSTOP❑ N== V,VB V9 YIELD❑ Date of counts: minor road 3' t" 814 Time Period: s7 sz:,1 mw.- - Average Running Speed: eo a p PHF: Grade a.S °lo VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume(vph) 1`3S Zo3� �U to (`ay Vol. (pcph),see Table 10-1 I ®ZiS 33 I I`32 I —? 3 VOLUMES IN PCPH 3 q NA V12 V11 V10 V6 NA vs 1 Vi 2\ S NA v1 v2 NA V3 V� V8 V9 33 � 9Z UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 p4-AASCS 1 , Z s S WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1:RT From Minor Street V9 J V IZ Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=V,12 4Z + 8?3 = 13O vph Z + 7-a3 = ZO& vph P Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) Co"S (sec) G-s (sec) Potential Capacity,cP(Fig. 10-3) CP9= -190 pcph Cp12= ZO pcph Percent of cp Utilized (v9/cp9)X 100= —% (vi2/cpt2)X 100= % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P9 = 0.93 P12= 0.99 Actual Capacity,cm cm9=CP9= -I9 Q pcph Cm 12=Cp12= ,?-Q pcph STEP 2:IT From Major Street (-- V, —J VI Conflicting Flows,V, V3+V,=VC, V6+V5=V'I 84 + as = yyL vph 3 +ZD3 = ZO(n vph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) S•S (sec) S,S (sec) Potential Capacity, cp(Fig. 10-3) cp,= 9Zy pcph cP,= S90 pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v,/Cp,)X 100= Z3 % (v1/cP1)X 100= % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P,= aaS p1 = y.99 Actual Capacity,Cm Cm*=Cp,= 9ZO pcph cm =CpI = ��O pcph STEP 3:TH From Minor Street Vs V11 Conflicting Flows,V, 1/2V3+V2+VI+V6+VS+V,=Vc, 1/2V6+VS+V,+V3+V2+V,=V,11 fit c,�, + 1 Z + 2 Z03 4- k + 3 +Z + S Z `,ph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) 1•S (sec) 1.S (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) cps=_3(00_pcph cp„ = 33 pcph Percent of cp Utilized (v8/CP8)X 100= 2 % (VI I/CPI1)X 100= % .Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P8= 0.98 P11 = 0.99 Actual Capacity,cm cma=cps X P, X P, Cm11 =CP1I X P,X P, -603 = 3(00 X Z0Z = 33 X 0.99 X o, S (pcph) 0.95 X o•eS (pcph) STEP 4:LT From Minor Street V7 LVIO Conflicting Flows,V, V'a(step 3)+V11 +Vt2=Vc7 V�II (step 3)+Vs+V9=V,,o SGL + A + S = SS`?vph .�+ � +92 =CogZvph Critical Gap,T,(Tab. 10-2) S-O (sec) P•0 (sec) Potential Capacity, cp(Fig. 10-3) Cp7= 37-0 pcph cPlo= Zt00 pcph Actual Capacity,cm Cm7=Cp7 X P, X P,X P11 X P12 cm,o=cP,o X P,X P, X Ps X P9 X 0.1)9 X 199_= VAOX o•a X 0•65 X 0-9 9'X !199 (pcph) 0.9 X o98 X 2.93 (pcph) 10-36 URBAN STREETS -3 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY CSH= vi+vi — where 2 movements share a lane (vi/cm)+(vi/c.) CSH� v"+vi+V, — where 3 movements share a lane (Vi/Cni)+(Vi/C.)+(Vk/C.I,) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) c,,(pcph) CR CSH V LOS 7 33 Z(-04 + ZA 919- 4coc.0 A 8 zo3 , /A 9 9 -190 A 9 5 MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) c (pcph) CSH(pcph) CR=CSH v LOS 10 951 Z(0 Z zS=.S c— Z IL t. 12 3 -1'Zo MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,.4 Movement v(pcph) c.(pcph) CR Cn, — V LOS 1 i 2)e(D e-1 9 4 -Z c.z(D —7 -0 c,1_ CONiNfENTS: MONTANA HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY CI PORTABLE COUNTER TRAFFIC EXPANSION FORM rJ� U COUNTY "77 LLf�-Tf STATION j CO. STA. CO. STA. WEATHER � � .,C �A��� S;�r� WEATHER WEATHER L0CAT10N sr tILL- ?PJ Q LOCATION LOCATION O, Ot QI D �p. MONTH ooG/ Nall /)e0 7W0 y ✓�d �d (/ f�3S� W Y � W Y J DATE /.3 /7 Ze /c/ loo DAY l .SAT s&lj /77AV] 1t1�0 I cy F�f HOUR A M AM A M. 12 - 1 7 a I • z 1 3 f a 3 2 - 3 3' - a © b 0 a - 5 a / G- 0 O 5 - 6 ! / OI 6 - 7 / !I / 3 s 7 - 8 /c/ 9 41G 757 417 9 - 10 / 7 73 6 10— ► i o l9 GS G3 S"G 6 1 1- 12 60 -7(, zqL So 0 Pm PM PM 12- i 30110 3a .99 491 & .1 - 2 -5-01 7L .33 109 qo 7G 9-1 2 - 3 0 -7o S",7 73 B l 7 3 - 4 6 a 7 �9 9 7 4 - 5 3 6 7Y 7L 5 - 6 63, 6 - 7 1 7 - 8 .'2/ ! ! tl 33 s - 9 / o /6 9 — 10 -7 G 10- I1 /p 3 3 11 - 12 AXLES VEHICLES qb6 72 7 3.7 o/3 A.D.T. REMARKS- REMARKS: REMARKS: MONTANA HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY PORTABLE COUNTER TRAFFIC EXPANSION FORM COUNTY C�'�-LG STATION 3 CO. STA. CO. STA. WEATHER f�//Z 'tom &Ilia-sjaw WEATHER WEATHER LOCATION MC/LIN LOCATION LOCATION 14.L L MONTH /VUv /uGY A,15 V lv�o4 DATE /=R I .SST Q moo e t a 'l4 F U/t '1�E1 t t { DAY /3 14/ /5 /G /7 _.oU HOUR AM AM AM 12 - 1 O 01 O O I - 2 t1 1 O r-� o 2 - 3 / ol D 0 d 3 - 4 p o 4 - s 0 5 - 6I ol O ol 1 03 n 8 - 9 ( 5 0 9 - 10 4 ( / to- II ap !3 �' t�{ Ii- 12 /S /7 // 0 5 PM PM PM 12— I / / -S —I I — 2 . q / 0 o / 2 - 3 ! 3 0 /9 /3 a Iy ' 3 -- 4 4 - S /7 / /d I/ /3 .z1 I s — 6 7 7 / /U a3 9 6 - 7 7 7 7 - 8 O O O 8 - 9 / O O 9 - to p d O t 17 to-- II O p a O 4 I I - 12 0 o v AXLES - VEHICLES /3� �/(� 7 /z/ — A.D.T. REMARKS-- REMARKS: REMARKS? - MONTANA HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY PORTABLE COUNTER TRAFFIC EXPANSION FORM COUNTY I- STATION CO. STA. CO. STA. WEATHER }� S,�pw WEATHER WEATHER b PALOCATION ��� �iLL QD . lmir LOCATION LOCATION IIIo o M c l 1 t�AT? Q� MONTH /Voiv NUU libel aL/ Y Ab) NdV IV60 / i DATE !3 / /Sr /6 '� ` /� /� !9 0 > W < �, K O DAY FQ! S� .54 a /xalit �# o %u L U/&2 HOUR A M A M A M 12 - 1 o / O D I - 2 o / o �• O 3 - 4 p 0 4 - S i of / i ! V 0 O 5 - 6 O o ) o l o o 6 - 7 0 I D / ! .3 7 - 8 41 3 - a / !/ vo i 8 - 9 z 0 3 52 .S 9 9 - 10 (0 5 Sl9 10- 1) — 12 �5 c7/ ! 3 �s" 57 Uz 4� P M PM PM 12- 1 /G Gl !l Sa 33 .22 3 i I - 2 39 /qI 6,`1 .5 9 2 - 3 4/0 410 q? 410 L11 3 - a 3 /3 63 3r7 4 — s y4( a5 S 511, 33 3� s - 6 15 g lo 30 37 6 - 7 3 r' 5 l a 7 ro S 7 - 8 2 7 / 8 - 9 3 -5 9 4 Z p Q — 9 - 10 3 1 a o 3 11 - 12 I O AXLES VEHICLES.;a'7 G /�3 550 5/8 3 9 9 01/9 3 A.D.T. REMARKS: REMARKS: REMARKS., \ ' MONTANA DEP TION TRAFFIC OPERAT /TypE REPORTS Weekly Volume Summary ****************************++************************************************** Data File : 11209201 . TRF Position B Station : 2312 Ident : 1612 Start Date : Nov 18 , 1992 ����L End Date : Nov 20 , 1992 Start Time : 09: 19 � ' ~ - End Time : 08: 13 Location : ON ROUSE AVE. ,SOUTH OF BRIDGER TRAILER CRT. ENTR. TOTAL TUBE ******************************************************************************* _ 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 Wkday Daily Begin Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Avg. Avg. _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 00:00 26 20 23 23 01 :00 9 14 12 12 02: 00 12 14 13 13 03:00 13 7 10 10 04:00 10 4 ^ 7 7 05:00 28 0 14 14 06:00 92 0 46 4- � 07: 00 311 0 ' 156 156 08:00 343 343 343 09:00 199 267 233 233 10:00 236 261 249 249 11:00 258 296 277 277 12:00 299 s10 305 305 13:00 303 300 3()2 302 14:00 303 298 301 101 15: 00 357 350 354 354 16:00 384 379 382 3B2 17:00 390 382 326 386 10 00 221 229 225 225 19:00 129 156 143 143 20:00 94 118 106 106 21:00 114 110 112 112 22:00 56 ' 79 68 68 23:00 _ 22 43 33 33 ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Totals ' a � 3365 4422 59 2615 2615 ******************************************************************************* % Avg Wkday 128.7 169. 1 2. 3 % Avg Day 128.7 169. 1 2.3 Ll Li 3 30 AM Peak Hr 12z00 09:00 01 :00 AM Count 258 343 20 PM Peak Hr 18:00 18: 00 "M Count 390 382 POSTED - ._ � — Montana Department 2701 Prospect Avenue Stan Stephens. Governor of Transportation Helena.lV1T 59020-9 726 May 29, 1992 Glenn A. Wood Morrison/Mailerie CSSA P.O. Box 1113 601 Haggarty Lane Bozeman, MT 59771-1113 Subject: Bridger Canyon Project - Bridaer Bowl State Highway No. 86 In response to your request for information the following is provided: The roadway condition of Highway 86 between MP 4.0 and MP 16.0 is fair with existing minor pavement structural damage and moderate to heavy cracking throughout. A printout listing rutting depths and International Roughness Index for this highway from MP 0.0 to MP 18.6 is attached. Four areas, or cluster locations, along Highway 86 have been identified for field safety review in 1992. These locations are MP 2.1-MP 2.5, MP 4.1-MP 4.7, MP 7.8-MP 8.2 and MP 13.9-MP 14.4. Corrective actions, if any, will be based on the results of the field safety review. The accident statistics for this section of highway from January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1991 are as follows: This Highway Statewide Average Accident Rate 2.43 1.60 Severity Rate 1.50 1.54 An Equal OoportUnl(Y Er-nlo;er Glenn A. Wood Page 2 May 29, 1992 Highway 86 will accommodate service flow rates as follows: With Year 2001 With Existing Development Development Actual Flow Rate 222 vph 306 vph 378 vph LOS A 144 vph 144 vph 140 vph LOS B 375 vph 375 vph 363 vph LOS C 691 vph 691 vph 669 vph LOS D 1048 vph 1048 vph 1014 vph LOS E 2025 vph 2025 vph 1959 vDh Expected Level of LOS B LOS B LOS C Service *This analysis used rolling terrain 50 percent no passing Bridger Canyon Road, from milepost 3 to milepost 15, was built in 1973 with a 30-foot surfaced width. Under today's traffic volumes it continues to operate at LOS B. Our greatest concern is the possible deterioration of this LOS as development continues along Bridger Canyon. The analysis indicates that LOS B will still be maintained for some time considering the addition of the proposed development traffic. However, within ten years, as normal traffic increases occur, the level of service will drop into the C range. This is assuming a three percent per year growth rate on the facility. Developments such as the proposed Bridger Bowl expansion can and possibly will result in a significant drop in the level of service on this roadway. Methods to mitigate the affects of further development along Bridger Canyon Road are limited due to the terrain, right-of-way and other constraints of the area. Reserve capacity is the difference between the flow rate at each level of service and the actual flow rate for the year and condition being studied. By examining the numbers, it can be seen that there is reserve capacity under the existing condition and some can be expected following full development at Bridger Bowl. Beyond that, toward year 2000, the level of service will fall from B to C and reserve capacity for the design level of service (B) will no longer exist. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 444-6103. Don W. Cromer, Supervisor Statewide Planning DWC:DM:D:PP:jrh:4.dr Attachment