Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Study - Glen Lake Commercial Developmentgbel*in traffic Glen Lake Commercial services Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Prepared For: Glen Lake Holdings, LLC. 145 Jeana Lei Court Bozeman, MT 59715. March, 2016 130 South Howie Street Helena Montana 59601 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman,Montana Table of Contents A. Executive Summary......................................................................................1 B. Project Description........................................................................................I C. Existing Conditions........................................................................................I Adjacent Roadways ..............................................................................I TrafficCounts........................................................................................2 Historic Traffic Data...............................................................................3 Levelof Service.....................................................................................3 D. Proposed Development..............................................................................4 E. Trip Generation and Assignment.................................................... F. Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................5 G. Traffic Impacts Outside of the Development...............................................7 H. Impact Summary & Recommendations......................................................7 List of Figures Figure 1 — Proposed Development Site..................... Figure 2— Proposed Development..........................................................................5 Figure 3—Trip Distribution.......................................................................................6 List of Tables Table 1 — Historic Traffic Data.................................................................................3 Table 2— 2015 Level of Service Summary..............................................................4 Table 3— Trip Generation Rates.............................................................................6 Table 4 — Level of Service Summary With Development........................................7 i Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman,Montana Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Glen Lake Commercial Development is a 5.5 acre mixed-use commercial project located west of Manley Road just north of Griffin Drive. The project would include 15 new commercial lots. As proposed, the Glen Lake Commercial Development will not create any roadway capacity problems along Griffin Drive. In general,the intersection ofManley Road and Griffin Drive would benefit from the improvement of Griffin Drive to current City of Bozeman standards for minor arterial roadways as designated in the current transportation plan including intersection turn lanes. No road modifications along Manley Road would be necessary to maintain the level of service of the roadway. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This document studies the possible effect on the surrounding road system from a proposed mixed- use light industrial development located west of Manley Road near Glen Lake in Bozeman, Montana. The document also identifies any traffic mitigation efforts that the development may require. The site is located north of Griffin Drive between Manly Road and the Montana Rail Link railroad tracks. The project would be developed to include 15 new commercial lots. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed development property currently consists of a 5.5-acre parcel of undeveloped land located west of Manley road just north of Griffin Drive adjacent to the Northwestern Energy facility. The topography in this area is flat. See Figure 1 for a location map of the proposed development. Adjacent Roadways Manley Road is two-lane north/south road that provides access to the homes and businesses north of Griffin Drive. The road has a paved width of 28 feet with designated bike lanes. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. The southbound leg of the intersection of Manley Road and Griffin Drive has been improved to include separated right- and left-turn lanes. Manley Road is designated as a collector in the current transportation plan. Abelin Traffic Services 1 March, 2016 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman,Montana Fi ure 1- Pro osed Develo ment Site N r f I f3l 1J! y r _ Tom" f IF r r` Proposed•,. rIII 'a` Qe1 glopmenNite h .y. i.-'+:. _ •' • r, ;,,:•, - l oak ., j Griffin Drive is a two-way, paved east/west minor arterial road that provides access through the northern edge of the City of Bozeman. The road has a paved width of 30 feet and has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. Traffic data collected 2014 by the Montana Department of Transportation indicates that Griffin Drive currently carries 8,300 VPD east of North 7"' Avenue. The Montana Rail Link like crosses Griffin Drive 200 feet west of Manley Road. The crossing has fully actuated gates. This railroad crossing currently had 15 train crossings each day. Traffic Counts Intersection data for this project was obtained from information collected in October 2015 along Griffin Drive for the Bozeman Transportation Plan Update. The raw traffic data is included in Appendix A of this report. The raw data collected for this project was adjusted for seasonal variation in accordance with MDT's annual count station located on Interstate 90 east of Bozeman (Station A-71). This count station data indicated that data collected in October is approximately 104% of the AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) volume in this area. Abelin Traffic Services 2 March,2016 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman,Montana Historic Traffic Data Abelin Traffic Services collected historic traffic data for the surrounding road system to help develop short-term background growth rates for the area. The information indicates that traffic volumes along Griffin Drive have remained relatively consistent over the past ten years with no significant growth. Table 1 - Historic Avera a Daily Traffic Data Location 2005 2006 1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Griffin Drive East of N. 7th 8,750 8,770 8,400 8,200 8,380 8,730 8,700 8,650 8,320 8,180 Griffin Drive West of Rouse 6,130 6,140 5,940 6,240 6,370 6,490 6,460 7,200 6,200 NA Planned Road Improvements The City of Bozeman has previously planned an improvement project along Griffin Drive at Manley Road as part of the City's Capital Improvements Program. Street Impact Fee SIF) Project #32 was identified in the CIP plan for FY14-FY18 and would include the construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location with additional turning lanes and improvements to the railroad crossing. The projected cost for this project is $925,000 and is awaiting funding. The proposed project has been dropped from the current CIP and it is not known when it may be completed. The 2016 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan currently underway will likely study the need for a grade separated crossing for the railroad track along Griffin Drive. However, no formal plans have been presented at this time. Level of Service Using the data collected for this project,ATS conducted a Level of Service(LOS) analysis at area intersections. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) - Special Report 209 and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) version 6.7. Intersections are graded from A to F representing the average delay that a vehicle entering an intersection can expect. Typically, a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak-hour conditions. Table 2 shows the existing 2015 LOS for the AM and PM peak hours without the traffic from the proposed development. The data shows that all intersections in this area were operating at an acceptable LOS in 2015. It should be noted that the intersection of Griffin Drive and Manley Road has shown some operations and delay issues in the past. However, Abelin Traffic Services 3 March, 2016 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman,Montana based on current traffic volumes in the area,this intersection is operating within acceptable standards. It is likely that the proximity of the Montana Rail Link tracks to the Manley Road intersection (200 feet) causes additional congestion in this area. When a train crosses Griffin Drive, vehicles cue well past Manley Road and it is not possible for drivers to turn right onto Griffin Drive. However, turning left onto Griffin Drive can be relatively easy when a train is present. After the train passes it is difficult to turn right or left from Manley Road until all cued vehicles have cleared the intersection. Based on the existing traffic volumes along Griffin Drive and the number of left-turns at Manly Road, the intersection may benefit from improvements to Griffin Drive to current minor arterial standards which would include installation ofturn lanes for traffic on Griffin Drive. However, the design of any turn lane may need to be truncated to avoid affecting the railroad crossing. Table 2 - 2015 Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay Sec. LOS Delay Sec. LOS Griffin Drive & North 7th 22.1 C 22.0 CAve. Griffin Drive & Manley 18.7 C 15.8 CRoad Griffin Drive & Rouse 18.1 B 19.3 BAvenue D. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development currently under consideration for this site includes 5.5 acres of land located west of Manley Road which would be developed into a mixed-use business park intended for light industrial land uses, small retail businesses, tech start-ups, small professional offices, and may include live-work opportunities. The current site plan consists of 16 lots ranging in size from 7,500 S.F. to 16,000 S.F. One lot is designated for storm water/open space. The project would produce 15 new commercial lots. For the purposes of this report it was assumed that half of the lots would be characterized as a business park and the other half would be a characterized as light-industrial park. The project would be built out over the next 3-5 years and would be accessed by two new approaches onto Manley Road. The Glen Lake Commercial Development site plan is shown in Figure 2. Abelin Traffic Services 4 March, 2016 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman,Montana Figure 2 — Proposed Glen Lake Commercial Development r^ x s. E. TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine the anticipated future traffic volumes from the proposed development using the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Ninth Edition). These rates are the national standard and are based on the most current information available to planners. A vehicle "trip" is defined as any trip that either begins or ends at the development site. ATS detennined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. According to the ITE trip generation rates, at full build-out the developments would produce 54 Abelin Traffic Services 5 March,2016 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic Impact Stucly Bozeman,Montana AM peak hour trips, 51 PM peak hour trips, and 422 daily trips. See Table 3 for detailed trip generation information. Table 3 - Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Total AM PM Peak Total PM Hour Trip Peak Hour Trip Peak Weekday Total Ends per Hour Trip Ends per Hour Trip Trip Ends Weekday Land Use Units Unit Ends Unit Ends per Unit Trip Ends Industrial Park 2 Acres 8.2 16 8.53 17 61.17 122 Business Park 2 Acres 18.86 38 16.84 34 149.79 300 Total I 1 1 54 51 422 F. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The traffic distribution and assignment for the proposed subdivision was based upon the existing ADT volumes along the adjacent roadways and the peak-hour turning volumes. Traffic is expected to distribute onto the surrounding road network as shown on Figure 3. Figure 3 - Trip Distribution a) a) Cu Q Q15% A 15% r` Proposed c z Development Co Site 55% 45% Griffin Drive 40%30% Abelin Traffic Services 6 March, 2016 Glen Lake Commercial Development Traffic hupact Study Bozeman,Montana G. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT Using the trip generation and trip distribution numbers, ATS determined the future Level of Service for the area intersections. The anticipated intersection LOS with the Glen Lake Commercial subdivision is shown in Table 4. These calculations are included in Appendix B of this report. Table 4 indicates that the construction of the Glen Lake Commercial Development will not cause any additional roadway capacity problems along Griffin Drive. The intersection of Manley Road and Griffin Drive is currently operating at an acceptable LOS and the additional vehicle delay caused by the Glen Lake Commercial Development will be small (two to three seconds per vehicle). The recommendations identified for SIF Project #32 (which include a traffic signal or roundabout at Griffin/Manley) do not appear to be currently warranted based on traffic volumes alone. The intersection of Griffin Drive and Manley Road will benefit from the installation of a left-turn lane on Griffin Drive as the roadway is improved to current minor arterial standards in the future. Total traffic volumes along Manley Road will reach 4,000 VPD with the completion of the Glen Lake Commercial Development, which is well within the operational limits of the existing two-lane road. Table 4 -Future Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Dela Sec. LOS Dela Sec. LOS Griffin Drive & North 7th 21.7 C 22.1 C Ave. Griffin Drive & Manley 21.5 C 16.9 C Road Griffin Drive & Rouse 18.1 B 19.0 BAvenue H. IMPACT SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS As proposed, the Glen Lake Commercial Development will not create any roadway capacity problems along Griffin Drive. In general, the intersection of Manley Road and Griffin Drive would benefit from the improvement of Griffin Drive to current City of Bozeman standards for minor arterial roadways as designated in the current transportation plan including intersection turn lanes. No road modifications along Manley Road would be necessary to maintain the level of service of the roadway. Abelin Traffic Services 7 March, 2016 APPENDIX A Traffic Data RPAS Robert Peccia&Associates 825 Custer Ave Count Name:7th/Griffin TMC Helena,Montana,United States 59604 Site Code:08 Start Date: 10/20(2015 406-447-5000 shane@rpa-hin.com Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Start Time App. App. App. App. Int.Left Thru Right Peds Total Left Thru Right Peds Total Left Thru Right Peds Total Left Thru Right Peds Total Total 7:00 AM 2 21 44 0 67 18 29 1 0 48 2 4 3 0 9 31 2 5 0 38 162 7:15 AM 0 32 52 0 84 23 43 1 0 67 2 1 2 0 5 32 0 10 0 42 196 7:30 AM 3 42 83 0 128 36 77 1 0 114 1 4 6 0 11 29 1 7 0 37 290 7:45 AM 2 62 133 0 197 42 89 4 0 135 2 3 8 0 13 43 1 11 0 55 400 Hourly Total 7 157 312 0 476 119 238 7 0 364 7 12 19 0 38 135 4 33 0 172 1050 8:00 AM 1 52 85 0 138 19 43 0 0 62 2 4 2 0 8 79 0 19 0 98 306 8:15 AM 3 48 67 0 118 36 76 1 1 113 0 2 8 0 10 43 3 12 1 58 299 8:30 AM 3 48 66 0 117 25 58 1 0 84 3 3 6 0 12 63 0 18 0 81 294 8:45 AM 4 58 66 0 128 23 55 0 0 78 1 2 5 0 8 49 0 15 0 64 278 Hourly Total 11 206 284 0 501 103 232 2 1 337 6 11 21 0 38 234 3 64 1 301 1177 BREAK 4:00 PM 3 78 71 0 152 19 71 1 0 91 1 3 12 0 16 90 1 22 0 113 372 4:15 PM 5 90 58 0 153 15 57 3 0 75 0 5 10 0 15 74 1 26 0 101 344 4:30 PM 2 76 50 0 128 17 53 1 0 71 0 0 4 0 4 106 1 21 0 128 331 4:45 PM 8 76 63 0 147 25 58 2 0 85 2 2 7 0 11 94 1 43 1 138 381 Hourly Total 18 320 242 ID 580 76 239 7 0 322 3 10 33 0 46 364 4 112 1 480 1428 5:00 PM 8 103 48 0 159 18 96 1 0 115 1 3 12 0 16 137 2 38 0 177 467 5:15 PM 4 118 53 0 175 14 85 2 0 101 1 2 6 0 9 130 1 42 0 173 458 5:30 PM 7 62 34 0 103 18 62 2 0 82 2 2 8 0 12 94 2 35 0 131 328 5:45 PM 2 76 51 0 129 16 76 0 0 92 0 1 9 0 10 67 1 28 0 96 327 Hourly Total 21 359 186 0 566 66 319 5 i) 390 4 8 35 0 47 428 6 143 0 577 1580 Grand Total 57 1042 1024 0 2123 364 1028 21 1 1413 20 41 108 0 169 1161 17 352 2 1530 5235 Approach% 2.7 49.1 48.2 - 25.8 72.8 1.5 11.8 24.3 63.9 - 75.9 1.1 23.0 Total% 1.1 19.9 19.6 40.6 7.0 19.6 0.4 - 27.0 0.4 0.8 2A 3.2 22.2 0.3 6.7 - 29.2 Motorcycles 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cars 44 785 679 1508 230 742 15 987 17 30 79 126 713 9 229 951 3572 Cars 77.2 75.3 66.3 71.0 63.2 72.2 71.4 - 69.9 85.0 73.2 73.1 74.6 61.4 52.9 65.1 - 62.2 68.2 Light Goods 13 218 288 - 519 104 256 4 - 364 2 8 23 - 33 370 7 108 - 485 1401Vehicles Light Goods 22.8 20.9 28.1 24.4 28.6 24.9 19.0 25.8 10.0 19.5 21.3 19.5 31.9 41.2 30.7 31.7 26.8Vehicles Buses 0 4 11 15 7 2 1 10 0 1 0 1 6 0 3 9 35 Buses 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.9 0.2 4.8 0.7 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.7 Single-Unit Trucks 0 31 28 59 20 25 1 46 1 2 4 7 50 1 10 61 173 Single-Unit 0.0 3.0 2.7 2.8 5.5 2.4 4.8 3.3 5.0 4.9 3.7 4.1 4.3 5.9 2.8 4.0 3.3Trucks Articulated 0 3 14 17 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 20 0 2 22 44Trucks Articulated 0.0 0.3 1.4 - 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 - 1.2 1.7 0.0 0.6 - 1.4 0.8Trucks Bicycles on 0 1 3 4 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 9Road Bicycles on 0.0 0.1 0.3 - 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Road 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Pedestrians - 0 1 0 - - - 2 Pedestrians I - - - 100.0 100.0 - - RFAI Robert Peccia&Associates Count Name:Manely/Griffin825CusterAveTMC Site Code:09Helena,Montana, United States 59604 Start Date: 10/20/2015 406-447-5000 shane@rpa-hln.com Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Start Time Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Right Peds App.Total Left Thru Peds App.Total Left Thru Right Peds App.Total Int.Total 7:00 AM 9 6 0 15 9 41 0 50 0 43 2 0 45 110 7:15 AM 3 8 0 11 15 51 0 66 0 35 6 0 41 118 7:30 AM 14 9 0 23 27 84 0 111 0 41 16 0 57 191 7:45 AM 13 12 0 25 44 107 0 151 0 66 10 0 76 252 Hourly Total 39 35 0 74 95 283 0 378 0 185 34 0 219 671 8:00 AM 24 19 0 43 26 59 0 85 0 59 7 0 66 194 8:15 AM 32 5 0 37 26 66 0 92 1 56 13 0 70 199 8:30 AM 17 12 1 29 16 63 0 79 0 54 14 0 68 176 8:45 AM 20 16 0 36 23 61 0 84 0 43 14 0 57 177 Hourly Total 93 52 1 145 91 249 0 340 1 212 48 261 746 BREAK«' 4:00 PM 13 29 0 42 20 70 0 90 0 71 16 0 87 219 4:15 PM 7 13 0 20 18 72 0 90 0 61 22 0 83 193 4:30 PM 8 25 0 33 10 50 0 60 0 87 8 0 95 188 4:45 PM 17 26 0 43 17 67 0 84 0 75 10 0 85 212 Hourly Total 45 93 0 138 65 259 0 324 0 294 56 0 350 812 5:00 PM 19 38 0 57 12 65 0 77 0 112 23 0 135 269 5:15 PM 11 21 0 32 13 59 0 72 0 92 13 0 105 209 5:30 PM 8 20 0 28 5 44 0 49 0 65 19 0 84 161 5:45 PM 20 21 0 41 12 62 0 74 0 68 8 0 76 191 Hourly Total 58 100 0 158 42 230 0 272 0 337 63 0 400 830 Grand Total 235 280 1 515 293 1021 0 1314 1 1028 201 0 1230 3059 Approach% 45.6 54.4 22.3 77.7 0.1 83.6 16.3 Total% 7.7 9.2 16.8 9.6 33.4 43.0 0.0 33.6 6.6 40.2 Motorcycles 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 Motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Cars 166 197 363 205 645 - 850 0 594 136 730 1943 Cars 70.6 70.4 - 70.5 70.0 63.2 64.7 0.0 57.8 67.7 - 59.3 63.5 Light Goods Vehicles 57 69 126 72 329 401 1 387 60 448 975 Light Goods 24.3 24.6 - 24.5 24.6 32.2 - 30.5 100.0 37.6 29.9 - 36.4 31.9Vehicles Buses 3 3 6 5 2 7 0 4 0 4 17 Buses 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.7 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 Single-Unit Trucks 8 9 17 7 30 37 0 29 4 33 87 Single-Unit Trucks 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.4 2.9 2.8 0.0 2.8 2.0 2.7 2.8 Articulated Trucks 0 2 2 2 13 15 0 10 0 10 27 Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 Bicycles on Road 1 0 1 1 2 3 0 3 1 4 8 Bicycles on Road 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 Pedestrians 1 0 0 Pedestrians 100.0 - RPAI Robert Peccia&Associates 825 Custer Ave Count Name:Rouse/Griffin TMC Helena,Montana,United States 59604 Site Code: 10 Start Date: 10/20/2015 406-447-5000 shane@rpa-hln.com Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Start Time App. App. App, App. Int.Left Thru Right Peds Total Left Thru Right Peds Total Left Thru Right Peds Total Left Thru Right Peds Total Total 7:00 AM 15 16 0 0 31 0 29 26 0 55 12 2 16 0 30 1 0 0 0 1 117 7:15 AM 18 21 0 0 39 0 42 18 0 60 21 1 16 0 38 1 3 0 0 4 141 7:30 AM 26 23 0 0 49 0 42 31 0 73 22 4 38 0 64 0 1 0 0 1 187 7:45 AM 44 28 2 0 74 0 44 34 0 78 29 3 40 0 72 1 1 0 0 2 226 Hourly Total 103 88 2 0 193 0 157 109 0 266 84 10 110 0 204 3 5 0 0 8 671 8:00 AM 21 41 0 0 62 0 73 35 0 108 27 1 36 0 64 3 1 1 0 5 239 8:15 AM 35 44 2 0 81 1 55 18 0 74 28 0 58 0 86 0 3 0 0 3 244 8:30 AM 39 46 1 0 86 0 34 24 0 58 38 1 41 0 80 1 2 0 0 3 227 8:45 AM 44 27 0 0 71 0 56 17 0 73 29 2 38 0 69 1 6 0 0 7 220 Hourly Total 139 158 3 0 300 1 218 94 0 313 122 4 173 0 299 5 12 1 0 18 930 BREAK"' 4:00 PM 52 44 2 0 98 0 35 25 0 60 36 4 42 0 82 3 2 0 0 5 245 4:15 PM 41 61 2 0 104 0 34 26 0 60 29 2 35 0 66 0 3 1 0 4 234 4:30 PM 32 43 1 0 76 0 48 37 0 85 17 2 41 0 60 1 1 0 0 2 223 4:45 PM 40 58 4 0 102 1 52 27 0 80 34 0 49 0 83 2 3 1 0 6 271 Hourly Total 165 206 9 01 380 1 169 115 0 285 116 8 167 0 291 6 9 2 0 17 973 5:00 PM 37 43 3 0 83 0 64 56 0 120 25 4 67 0 96 4 4 0 0 8 307 5:15 PM 43 75 2 0 120 0 50 39 0 89 26 3 39 68 1 1 0 0 2 279 5:30 PM 43 47 0 0 90 0 46 35 1 81 23 2 37 62 1 1 0 0 2 235 5:45 PM 34 60 1 0 95 0 34 32 0 66 31 0 35 0 66 7 1 0 1 8 235 Hourly Total 157 225 6 0 388 0 194 162 1 356 105 9 178 2 292 13 7 0 1 20 1056 Grand Total 564 677 20 0 1261 2 738 480 1 1220 427 31 628 2 1086 27 33 3 1 63 3630 Approach% 44.7 53.7 1.6 0.2 60.5 39.3 39.3 2.9 57.8 42.9 52.4 4.8 Total% 15.5 18.7 0.6 34.7 0.1 20.3 13.2 33.6 11.8 0.9 17.3 29.9 0.7 0.9 0.1 1.7 Motorcycles 1 0 0 - 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 0 0 3 Motorcycles 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cars 355 523 16 - 894 0 525 289 814 254 17 379 - 650 17 25 1 43 2401 Cars 62.9 77.3 80.0 70.9 0.0 71.1 60.2 66.7 59.5 54.8 60.4 59.9 63.0 75.8 33.3 68.3 66.1 Light Goods 179 139 3 321 1 193 161 355 150 11 202 363 7 3 2 12 1051Vehicles Light Goods 31.7 20.5 15.0 - 25.5 50.0 26.2 33.5 - 29.1 35.1 35.5 32.2 - 33.4 25.9 9.1 66.7 - 19.0 29.0Vehicles Buses 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 5 3 0 6 - 9 0 0 0 0 17 Buses 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5- Single-Unit 25 13 1 39 1 19 24 44 17 2 35 54 3 3 0 6 143Trucks Single-Unit 4.4 1.9 5.0 3.1 50.0 2.6 5.0 3.6 4.0 6.5 5.6 5.0 11.1 9.1 0.0 9.5 3.9Trucks Articulated 1 1 0 - 2 0 0 0 - 0 3 1 3 - 7 0 2 0 - 2 11Trucks Articulated Trucks 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.2 0.5 0.6 0.0 6.1 0.0 3.2 0.3 Bicycles on 0 1 0 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 0 - 0 4Road Bicycles on 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Road Pedestrians 0 1 Pedestrians 100.0 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - APPENDIX B Traffic Model a, v 0 0 w O lD 00 N 41 14r«-L o 41 4-L cc z- 'jh t 7 - J41 t n NN N It N,- i m N L O or-4 o N e-i N N N e-i N N a' N Dl ZT Ql v r 4- 1 r 4- 1 Z- ht* M* 41 7 -041t* Ml* Pub v Nn `r- (N° N Tw ri e-1 V' N to N 01 01 CY I V' m V) d• N iN-i QNl Itt V s-i 00 N tll i-I 00 V1 m IT IH a- Q 4114r«-t t14r4- Qj O z- 41 t Z- - 41 a a s tD lD 00 00 N N d• N c;I, N 00 u i m 00m0mo rl N v iv E Z Z p O = 1- O = z3- N Y X N Y XJup0NCb0NC_ c F N a E a E C7 t- w a H w a -I v v L L C C 4- 4-4- 4- V V Q ei Q m N OJ 4J14r L o 1 r t Z- Jh t j* Z - Jh t f, m 1-4 un m c c Ul) a a a) v r u, 1 r 41 z- h zJh t Z-+ h zJh t m V) "t N cr N 00 LO ate+ In N H H D DZOZO Q I H Cj'rl l0 s-i lJ') E 4) 4- 0-0 z- ht z- ht i6 U tD N N-y Vu a..+ E E Z Z E _ Ou L L O 0 'D 0O c`o OVL =L 2 c c c J u N a)O N v v v 0 C C N Ln 1- v l0 lD to i, N O e-1 O -1 cH 00 Q> O .-i 1-4 -1 .1 vq tlyr L o 4J 4- 4 41tt* z- -tht 00 O at m V Ln Ln to O In w -i I, N .-1 m N Ln o r-1 00 N IH N N N 11 N @ t0 V m O 00 C1• N w N cr 1 i-i Q1 d• Q1 N r- 0 1 r 4- 411 h r z-h t 7 - h t* 7 P u b O O O o, m w ri 00 O 00 O O I:r r t OOto1nONNcrhmmw I N I;r N a-I N to 1n 00 r-I 00 Ln Ln r, d• Ln to w N .N-i a) d' a-I 00 N 1f1 ri 00 Ln m d' C:tlt r t tl4r4-L CL) Z- h t t z- 41 10 m E E v M °ov -0 Y c c cc a a N m l7 F` i7i Q v a APPENDIX C LOS Calculations HCS 2, "0 Signalized Intersection Results "ummary General Information Intersection Information 4 JA-1 4-'4 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 1 L Ar^lvst RLA Analysis Date Feb 17, 2016 Area Type Other fiction Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street North 7th Avenue Analysis Year 2015 Analysis Period 1>7:00 l C' Intersection lGriffin Drive File Name N7th2015AM.xus Project Description IGIen Lake Commercial t fr r.r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand(v),veh/h 8 12 32 172 4 44 8 248 532 168 356 16 Signal Information Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 F z 3 4 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 46.3 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 s Force Mode Fixed Simult.Gap N/S On Red 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 50.3 50.3 39.7 39.7 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway( MAH), s 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 Queue Clearance Time(g s), s 32.5 22.6 Green Extension Time (g e), s 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Out Probability 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SIB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 52 176 44 256 532 168 372 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1593 1351 1481 1736 1481 1116 1734 Cueue Service Time(g s), s 0.0 5.1 1 1.3 0.0 30.5 11.3 14.8 ycle Queue Clearance Time(g c), s 1.4 6.5 1.3 9.3 30.5 20.6 14.8 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.40 0A0 0.40 rapacity(c),veh/h 866 775 762 729 587 407 687 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.060 0.227 0.058 0.351 0.906 0.413 0.541 available Capacity(c a),veh/h 866 775 762 1475 1234 895 1445 Back of Queue( Q),veh/In (50 th percentile)0.5 2.0 0.4 3.6 10.3 2.9 5.7 queue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d t),s/veh 10.9 12.2 10.9 19.2 25.6 26.5 20.9 ncremental Delay(d 2),s/veh 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.2 nitial Queue Delay(d 3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ontrol Delay(d),s/veh 11.1 12.9 11.1 19.3 27.8 26.7 21.1 evel of Service(LOS) B B B I B C C C pproach Delay,s/veh/LOS 11.1 B 12.5 B 25.1 C 22.9 C ntersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 22.1 C modal Results EB WB NB SIB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score/LOS 0.6 A 0.9 A 1.8 A 1.4 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 201011 Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:34:01 AM HCS 21 "0 Signalized Intersection Results ",ammary General Information 7Area ction Information 1-1 4- Agency ATS n, h 0.25 J t An^lvst RLA Analysis Date Feb 17,2016 pe Other iction Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street Rouse Avenue Analysis Year 2015 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection JGriffin Drive File Name Rouse2015AM.xus Project Description JGIen Lake Commercial t+y s•,r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand(v),veh/h 112 4 232 1 12 1 140 176 8 4 220 72 Signal Information Cycle, s 70.0 Reference Phase 2 717 "; z a Offset,s 0 Reference Point End Green 41.3 6.4 111.3 0.0 0.0 10.0 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On LRed 1.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 3 8 4 Case Number 7.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 5.3 Phase Duration, s 45.3 45.3 9.4 24.7 15.3 Change Period, ( Y+R c),s 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 1 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 Queue Clearance Time(g s),s 6.6 7.9 10.5 Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.9 r -Call Probability 0.93 1.00 1.00 N,-_.Out Probability 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 116 232 14 140 184 4 220 72 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s), veh/h/In 1392 1481 1710 1664 1734 1183 1748 1481 Dueue Service Time(g s), s 2.3 5.3 0.0 1 4.6 5.9 0.2 8.5 1 3.0 cycle Queue Clearance Time(g c), s 2.6 5.3 0.2 4.6 5.9 0.2 8.5 3.0 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.28 1 0.30 0.16 0.16 0.16 rapacity(c),veh/h 922 873 1064 302 513 294 283 239 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.126 10.266 0.013 0.464 0.359 24.7 0.779 0.301 4vailable Capacity(c a),veh/h 922 873 1064 887 1362 1138 965 Sack of Queue( Q),veh/In (50 th percentile)0.7 1.5 0.1 1.7 2.2 3.5 1.0 Dueue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d t), s/veh 6.4 7.0 5.9 20.6 19.4 28.1 25.9 ncremental Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.3 nitial Queue Delay(d 3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dontrol Delay(d), s/veh 6.7 7.7 6.0 21.0 19.6 29.9 26.1 evel of Service(LOS) A A A C B C C pproach Delay,s/veh/LOS 7.4 A 6.0 A 20.2 C C ntersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 18.1 B modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.4 B 2.1 B 2.3 B 3icycle LOS Score/LOS 1.1 A 0.5 A 1.0 A 1.0 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010111 Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:36:28 AM HCS 21 -0 Signalized Intersection Results -,jmmary General Information Intersection Information 4.L4-i I- Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 An-lvst RLA Analysis Date Feb 17, 2016 Area Type Other J_ ction Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street North 7th Avenue Analysis Year 2015 1 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection Griffin Drive File Name N7th2015PM.xus Project Description IGIen Lake Commercial 4 t+Y a r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand(v),veh/h 4 12 48 548 8 152 32 412 192 72 384 4 Signal Information Cycle,s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 r" Offset,s 0 Reference Point End 8Green52.2 29. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 rimer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL w SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 ase Number 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 hase Duration,s 56.2 56.2 33.8 33.8 ange Period, ( Y+R c),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 Dueue Clearance Time(g s),s 23.8 25.9 3reen Extension Time(g e), s 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 Call Probability 1.00 1.00 4._..Out Probability 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB pproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 kdjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 64 556 152 444 192 72 388 djusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1626 1329 1481 1642 1481 961 1744 Dueue Service Time(g s), s 1 0.0 24.5 4.5 8.1 8.7 6.2 1 16.8 cycle Queue Clearance Time(g c), s 1.6 28.3 4.5 21.8 8.7 23.9 16.8 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 apacity(c),veh/h 959 828 834 614 515 225 607 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.067 0.671 10.182 10.723 0.373 0.320 0.640 available Capacity(c e),veh/h 959 828 834 1417 1234 692 1454 3ack of Queue( Q), veh/In(50 th percentile)0.6 8.3 1.4 8.2 2.9 1.4 6.7 ueue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d t ), s/veh 8.9 14.8 9.6 26.0 22.0 35.0 24.6 ncremental Delay(d 2), s/veh 0.1 4.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 nitial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 NSM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 control Delay(d), s/veh 9.1 26.7 22.2 35.3 25.0 evel of Service(LOS) A C C D C kpproach Delay,s/veh/LOS 9.1 A 17.125.3 C 26.7 C ntersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 22.0 C modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.1 B ilicycle LOS Score/LOS 0.6 A 1 1.7 A 1.5 A 1 1.2 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 201011 Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:35:20 AM HCS 2r 0 Signalized Intersection Results ',ammary General Information Intersection Information d '-4.1 14 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 Ar^'gist RLA Analysis Date Feb 17, 2016 Area Type Other µ r J_ ction Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street Rouse Avenue Analysis Year 2015 1 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection lGriffin Drive File Name Rouse2015PM.xus Project Description JGIen Lake Commercial T qr I,r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v),veh/h 100 16 238 16 16 1 148 172 12 1 256 224 Signal Information Cycle, s 70.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End 4 Green 39.1 6.5 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 13.0 1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 10.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL ] 4.0 WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 6 3 8 4 Case Number 8.0 1.0 4.0 5.3 Phase Duration, s 43.1 9.5 26.9 17.4 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 0.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 Dueue Clearance Time(g s), s 6.7 7.6 12.1 3reen Extension Time (g e) s 0.0 0.2 1.3 1.3 Call Probability 1 1 0.94 1 1.00 1.00 V,_Out Probability 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB 4pproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R 4ssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 4djusted Flow Rate( v),veh/h 116 238 33 148 184 1 256 224 4djusted Saturation Flow Rate(s), veh/h/In 1421 1481 1550 1664 1727 1183 1748 1481 Dueue Service Time(g s), s 1 2.1 5.9 0.0 4.7 5.6 0.0 9.7 10.1 cycle Queue Clearance Time(g c), s 2.7 5.9 0.6 4.7 5.6 0.0 9.7 10.1 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.31 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 rapacity(c), veh/h 889 827 941 317 566 329 334 283 Jolume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.131 0.288 0.035 0.467 0.325 0.003 0.766 0.791 available Capacity(C a),veh/h 889 827 941 898 1357 871 1135 962 Sack of Queue( Q),veh/In (50 th percentile)0.8 1.7 0.2 1.7 2.1 0.0 3.9 3.5 queue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d ), s/veh 7.4 8.1 7.0 19.2 17.7 22.9 26.8 27.0 ncremental Delay(d 2), s/veh 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.9 nitial Queue Delay(d s), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ontrol Delay(d), s/veh 7.7 9.0 7.0 19.6 17.8 22.9 28.2 28.9 eve]of Service(LOS) A A A B B C C C pproach Delay, s/veh/LOS 8.6 A 7.0 A 18.6 B 28.5 C ntersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 19.3 B modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.4 B 2.1 B 2.3 B 3icycle LOS Score/LOS 1.1 A 0.5 A 1.0 A 1.3 A pyright @ 2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010T"Streets Version 6.70 Generated: 2/26/2016 8:37:04 AM HCS 2r 'f) Signalized Intersection Results ',ammary General Information Intersection Information r{r.r.i J- Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 1 L Ar^'vst RLA Analysis Date Feb 17,2016 Area Type Other fiction Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street North 7th Avenue Analysis Year 2015 1 Analysis Period 1>7:00 V r Intersection Griffin Drive File Name N7thAMwith.xus Project Description With Project t+Y t•r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand(v),veh/h 8 12 32 176 4 45 8 248 551 174 356 16 Signal Information Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 45.2 36.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _, Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult.Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 49.2 49.2 40.8 40.8 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 lax Allow Headway ( MAH), s 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 Cueue Clearance Time(g s), s 33.5 22.6 3reen Extension Time(g e), s 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Out Probability 1 0.00 0.00 Vlovement Group Results EB WB NB SB pproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Nssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 kdjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 52 180 45 256 551 174 372 djusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1594 1351 1481 1736 1481 1116 1734 ueue Service Time(g s), s 0.0 5.4 1 1.4 1 0.0 31.5 11.5 14.5 ycle Queue Clearance Time(g c),s 1.5 6.9 1.4 9.1 31.5 20.6 14.5 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 rapacity(c),veh/h 846 757 743 751 606 424 709 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.061 0.238 0.061 0.341 0.909 0.411 0.524 available Capacity(c a),veh/h 846 757 743 1476 1234 897 1445 3ack of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile)0.5 2.1 0.5 3.5 10.6 3.0 5.6 ueue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d t ), s/veh 11.5 12.9 11.5 18.4 25.0 25.5 20.0 ncremental Delay(d 2),s/veh 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.2 nitial Queue Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 control Delay(d), s/veh 11.7 13.6 11.7 18.5 27.3 25.8 20.2 evel of Service(LOS) B B B B C C C kpproach Delay,s/veh/LOS 11.7 B 13.2 B 24.5 C 22.0 C ntersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 21.7 C modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.1 B ilicycle LOS Score/LOS 0.6 A 1 0.9 1 A 1.8 A 1.4 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 201011 Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:38:00 AM HCS 2, '0 Signalized Intersection Results-14mmary General Information Intersection Information 4 J.4-1 b Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 J L Ar-'•,st RLA Analysis Date Feb 17,2016 Area Type Other b J. ction Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street Rouse Avenue Analysis Year 2015 1 Analysis Period 1>7:00 V Intersection lGriffin Drive File Name RouseAMwith.xus Project Description JWith Development I t fY t•r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand( v),veh/h 113 4 235 1 12 1 154 176 8 4 220 78 Signal Information y Dycle,s 70.0 Reference Phase 2 X r" Dffset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 40.7 17.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 z Jncoordinated No Simult.Gap E!W On Yellow 3.0 13.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 orce Mode Fixed Simult.Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 rimer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT assigned Phase 2 6 3 8 4 ase Number 7.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 5.3 hale Duration, s 44.7 44.7 10.0 25.3 15.3 change Period, ( Y+R ),s 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Vlax Allow Headway(MAH),s 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 queue Clearance Time(g s),s 7.1 7.8 10.4 3reen Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.9 Call Probability 0.95 1.00 1.00 via,.Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SIB pproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R ssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 kdjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 117 235 14 154 184 4 220 78 djusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1392 1481 1710 1664 1734 1183 1748 1481 ueue Service Time(g s), s 2.4 5.5 0.0 5.1 5.8 0.2 8.4 3.3 ycle Queue Clearance Time(g c),s 2.7 5.5 0.2 5.1 5.8 0.2 8.4 3.3 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.29 0.30 0.16 0.16 0.16 rapacity(c),veh/h 911 861 1050 315 527 294 283 240 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.128 0.273 0.013 0.488 0.349 0.014 0.778 0.325 available Capacity(c a),veh/h 911 861 1050 887 1362 864 1124 953 3ack of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile)0.7 1.6 0.1 1.8 2.2 0.1 3.5 1.1 ueue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d t),s/veh 6.7 7.3 6.2 20.4 19.0 24.7 28.1 26.0 ncremental Delay(d 2),s/veh 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.3 nitial Queue Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 control Delay(d),s/veh 7.0 8.1 6.2 20.8 19.1 24.7 29.9 26.2 evel of Service(LOS) A A A C B C C C kpproach Delay,s/veh/LOS 7.7 A 6.2 A 19.9 B-J 28.9 C ntersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 18.1 B modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.4 B 2.1 B 2.3 B 3icycle LOS Score/LOS 1.1 A 0.5 A 1.0 A 1.0 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 201011 Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:39:07 AM HCS 2r 'O Signalized Intersection ResultF 1ummary General Information Intersection Information J 4.1-4-f I. Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 A--'N/st RLA Analysis Date Feb 17, 2016 Area Type Other A. iction Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street North 7th Avenue Analysis Year 2015 1 Analysis Period 1>7:00 r r Intersection lGriffin Drive File Name N7thPMwith.xus Project Description JWith Development 4 Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand(v),veh/h 4 12 48 565 8 158 32 412 197 74 384 4 Signal Information Cycle,s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 x " Offset, s 0 Reference Point End 2 3 4 Green 52.1 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 56.1 56.1 33.9 33.9 Change Period, ( Y+R c),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time(g s), s 23.6 26.0 3reen Extension Time(g e), s 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 Call Probability 1 1.00 1.00 b .,.Out Probability 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 adjusted Flow Rate( v),veh/h 64 573 158 444 197 74 388 4djusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1634 1329 1481 1649 1481 961 1744 queue Service Time(g s), s 1 0.0 26.1 1 4.7 8.0 9.0 6.4 16.8 ycle Queue Clearance Time(g c),s 1.6 29.9 4.7 21.6 9.0 24.0 16.8 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 apacity(c),veh/h 961 826 832 618 517 227 609 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.067 0.693 0.190 0.718 0.381 0.325 0.637 Wailable Capacity(c a),veh/h 961 826 1 832 1420 1234 693 1454 Sack of Queue(Q),vehlln(50 th percentile)0.6 8.9 1.5 8.1 3.0 1.5 6.6 queue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d i),s/veh 9.0 15.2 9.7 25.9 22.0 34.9 24.5 ncremental Delay(d 2),s/veh 0.1 4.8 0.5 MO. 60.2 0.3 0.4 nitial Queue Delay(d 3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 control Delay(d), s/veh 9.1 19.9 10 22 22.2 35.2 24.9 evel of Service(LOS) A B B C D C approach Delay,s/veh/LOS 9.1 A 17.8 B 25. 0 26.6 C ntersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 22.1 C modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.1 B 3icycle LOS Score/LOS 0.6 A 1.7 A 1.5 A 1.2 1 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010TM Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:38:32 AM HCS 2`'0 Signalized Intersection ResultF -ummary hd General Information Intersection Information 1 .6 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.25 L Ar-',/st RLA Analysis Date Feb 17,2016 Area Type Other fiction Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 Urban Street Rouse Avenue Analysis Year 2015 1 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection lGriffin Drive File Name RousePMwith.xus Project Description JWith Development t t,•Y t r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L t38.91 L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v),veh/h 105 16 16 1 151 172 12L 1 256 225 Signal Information Cycle, s 70.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset,s 0 Reference Point End 2 4 Green 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0UncoordinatedNoSimult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult.Gap N/S On Red 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 3 8 4 Case Number 7.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 5.3 Phase Duration, s 42.9 42.9 9.7 27.1 17.4 Change Period, ( Y+R c),s 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time(g s),s 6.8 7.6 12.1 Green Extension Time(g e), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 1.3 r Call Probability 0.95 1.00 1.00 M--Out Probability 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L I T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 121 281 33 151 184 1 256 225 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s), veh/h/In 1419 1481 1550 1664 1727 1183 1748 1481 3ueue Service Time(g s), s 2.2 7.3 0.0 4.8 5.6 0.0 9.7 10.1 ycle Queue Clearance Time(g c),s 2.8 7.3 0.6 4.8 5.6 0.0 9.7 10.1 3reen Ratio(g/C) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 rapacity(c),veh/h 885 823 938 320 570 330 335 284 olume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)0.137 0.341 0.035 0.472 0.323 0.003 0.763 0.792 Available Capacity(c s),veh/h 885 823 1 938 899 1357 869 1132 959 3ack of Queue( Q),veh/In (50 th percentile)0.8 2.2 0.2 1.7 2.1 0.0 3.9 3.5 D.ueue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jniform Delay(d t),s/veh 7.5 8.5 7.0 19.2 17.6 22.9 26.8 27.0 ncremental Delay(d 2),s/veh 1 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.9 nitial Queue Delay(d 3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ontrol Delay(d), s/veh 7.8 9.6 7.1 1 19.6 17.7 22.9 28.2 28.8 evel of Service(LOS) A A A B B C C C pproach Delay,s/veh/LOS 9.1 A 7.1 A 18.5T B 28.5 C ntersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 19.0 B modal Results EB WB NB SB edestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.4 B 2.1 B 2.3 B 31cycle LOS Score/LOS 1.2 A 0.5 A 1.0 A 1.3 A pyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010T11 Streets Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:39:53 AM General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Griffin&Manley y/Co. ATS Jurisdiction Bozeman Date Performed 2/17/2016 East/West Street Griffin Analysis Year 2015 North/South Street Manley Time Analyzed Exising AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs)0.25 Project Description Glen Lake Commercial Lanes Major Street East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration LT TR L R Volume(veh/h) 176 428 242 40 52 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Flow Rate(veh/h) 604 52 48 Capacity 1267 217 771 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.24 0.06 95%Queue Length 0.5 0.9 0.2 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.3 1 1 26.7 10.0 Level of Service(LOS) A D A oath Delay(s/veh) 3.5 18.7 Fproach LOS A C Dpyright©2016 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS 201011 TWSC Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:41:40 AM Manley20l5AM.xtw General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Griffin&Manley y/Co. ATS Jurisdiction Bozeman Date Performed 2/17/2016 East/West Street Griffin Analysis Year 2015 North/South Street Manley Time Analyzed Exising PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs)0.25 Project Description Glen Lake Commercial Lanes 4 s-a Major Street East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments each Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration LT TR L R Volume(veh/h)48 260 448 92 76 152 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Flow Rate(veh/h) 308 76 152 Capacity 1017 313 571 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.24 0.27 95%Queue Length 0.1 0.9 1.1 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.7 20.2 13.6 Level of Service(LOS) A I I B oath Delay(s/veh) 1.8 15.8 h.proach LOS A C Dpyright©2016 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS 201 OTI TWSC Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:42:07 AM Manley20l 5PM.xtw Elm General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Griffin&Manley y/Co. ATS Jurisdiction Bozeman Date Performed 2/17/2016 East/West Street Griffin Analysis Year 2015 North/South Street Manely Time Analyzed AM-With Development Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs)0.25 Project Description Glen Lake Commercial Lanes 4 t t Major Street:East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Dach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration LT TR L R Volume(veh/h) 201 428 1 264 1 60 56 53 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate(veh/h) 629 56 53 Capacity 1223 188 740 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.30 0.07 95%Queue Length 0.6 1.2 0.2 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.5 32.1 EBLevelofService(LOS) A D E oath Delay(s/veh) 4.0 21.5 proach LOS A C Dpyright©2016 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'"TWSC Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:42:36 AM ManleyAMwith.xtw General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Griffin&Manley y/Co. ATS Jurisdiction Bozeman Date Performed 2/17/2016 East/West Street Griffin Analysis Year 2015 North/South Street Manley Time Analyzed PM-With Development Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs)0.25 Project Description Glen Lake Commercial Lanes Major Street:East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration LT TR L R Volume(veh/h)54 260 448 97 94 174 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate(veh/h) 314 94 174 Capacity 1013 305 569 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 95%Queue Length 0.2 1.3 1.3 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.8 22.0 14.1 Level of Service(LOS) A C B oach Delay(s/veh) 2.0 16.9 tApproach LOS A C pyright©2016 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010"TWSC Version 6.70 Generated:2/26/2016 8:43:01 AM ManleyPMwith.xtw