The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About006 - Appendix E - TISBoutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study Prepared for: Intrinsik Architecture For submittal to: by: 406 Traffic & Transportation Consulting P.O. Box 249 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.922.7300 October 2024 Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location and Study Area........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Analysis Methods and References........................................................................................................ 1 2 Existing and Base Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Streets and Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historical and Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 5 3 Trip Generation and Distribution .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment .......................................................................................................... 8 4 Traffic Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................... 10 5 On-Street Parking Utilization Study ............................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Findings and Recommendations......................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Overall Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................................................ 2 2. Hotel Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 3 3. Intersection LOS Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 4 4. Existing Road and Intersection Basics ............................................................................................................ 5 5. Historical Daily Traffic Volume ........................................................................................................................ 6 6. Existing Traffic Volume ................................................................................................................................... 7 7. Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................... 8 8. Valet Routing and Trip Distribution Percentages for New Project Trips ......................................................... 9 9. Assignment of New Project Trips .................................................................................................................. 10 10. Total Traffic Volumes with the Project .......................................................................................................... 11 11. Peak Hour Intersection LOS and Delay Summary ........................................................................................ 11 12. Parking Utilization Calculations..................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDICES A: Raw Traffic Count Data B: Intersection Analysis Software Output C: Parking Utilization Study Raw Data Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 1 1 INTRODUCTION This report documents the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for a new boutique hotel downtown Bozeman, as required by Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 38.220.060.11, parts g through i. Valet parking is expected to feature somewhat prominently in the overall access picture given (a) the project’s target market segment and (b) the scarcity of parking nearby, including the lack of onsite parking. That operation is included in the study with estimates of activity based on another recent project in downtown Bozeman. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY AREA The overall subdivision site location is shown in Exhibit 1 along with a map of the intersections studied. The study intersections are: 1. Lamme Street at Bozeman Avenue 2. Lamme Street at Wallace Avenue 3. Mendenhall Street at Bozeman Avenue 4. Mendenhall Street at Rouse Avenue (MT-86) From here forward in the body of this report, existing intersections are generally referred to only by their distinguishing street names (e.g., “Lamme at Bozeman”) for the sake of brevity. No new intersections or street access points (driveways) will be created as part of this project. One driveway will be removed. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The hotel site was used most recently for surface parking but was fenced off and unused at the outset of this study, including during the time traffic count data was collected. The proposed hotel will include 71 guest rooms with limited ground-floor event space, a lobby restaurant/bar and rooftop bar expected to be for the primary (but not necessarily exclusive) use of guests, and a kitchen. No parking will be provided on the site, and the hotel’s service and delivery access will be from the existing alley behind the building. On-street parking at and near the site will be used by hotel guests and visitors. This includes six spaces located along the south side of Mendenhall Street in front of the hotel property itself. Two off-street lots will also be available for hotel use. Exhibit 2 shows the site plan for the proposed hotel. 1.3 ANALYSIS METHODS AND REFERENCES Trip generation rates, or equations as applicable, are sourced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation package’s 11th edition. ITE trip generation data, when aggregated across enough varied sites, produce both simple average rates and best-fit equations, either linear or logarithmic, to help the analyst derive proper estimates for their situation. Equations are generally preferred over rates, especially for larger sites where trip generation per unit of land use can diminish with increasing project size. General ITE guidance calls for the use of the fitted curve equation when the data set for the land use type in question is comprised of studies from 20 or more separate sites and when the equation produces a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.75 or higher, with 1.0 being the best possible fit. Because hotel trip generation studies in the ITE are not so numerous and because rates produce somewhat more conservative trip estimates, rates are used here rather than equations. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 2 Exhibit 1. Overall Site Location and Study Intersections Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 3 Exhibit 2. Hotel Site Plan Content Source: Intrinsik Architecture, March 2024 Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 4 Previous traffic studies in this area (downtown Bozeman) have indicated that the midday peak hour is typically busier than the morning peak. The area’s restaurants, coffee shops, and employers generate a reasonable amount of traffic in the typical morning peak, but the “lunch rush” often outpaces morning demand. This typical case would argue for the analysis of the midday peak instead of the morning one. However, the prominence to this project of Hawthorne Elementary School, located a short distance away on the block bounded by Mendenhall, Rouse, Lamme, and Church, resulted in the selection of the more traditional AM/PM approach. The school’s morning peak coincides with the typical AM peak hour, but it has not been observed to generate prominent midday traffic. Operational performance was analyzed at the six study intersections through the use of the industry-standard methods presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published in its modern form as Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. The Synchro software package, version 12, was employed as both a data repository and a capacity analysis tool, with reports for each intersection generated using Synchro’s application of the assumptions of the HCM’s 7th edition, the most recent at the time of this study. The HCM methodology for intersection capacity analysis produces delay estimates for each turning movement (or “lane group”, when multiple turning movements operate from the same lane). These delay estimates are assigned Level of Service (LOS) grades that range from A (best) to F (worst), as indicated in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3. Intersection LOS Criteria Delay Range (seconds/vehicle) by Control Type LOS Unsignalized Signalized Description A 0 to 10.0 0 - 10.0 Free flow B 10.1 to 15.0 10.1 to 20.0 Stable flow (slight delays) C 15.1 to 25.0 20.1 to 35.1 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 25.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 55.0 Approaching unstable flow E 35.1 to 50.0 55.1 to 80.0 Unstable flow F 50.1 or more 80.1 or more Forced flow (congested, queues fail to clear) Source: HCM 7th Edition It’s also important to note that for unsignalized intersections with only side-street Stop sign control, LOS for the intersection is represented by the LOS for the worst lane group. All study locations except the Mendenhall at Rouse intersection use this type of control. Signals, all-way stops, and roundabouts use a volume-weighted average delay for all lane groups and approaches to establish the LOS grade. Per City code, operations impact is determined according to the degree to which LOS conforms to acceptability standards. The intersections analyzed here are subject to a standard of LOS C or better, though in some cases and places a worse LOS can be accepted if special pre-existing physical limitations are recognized. Where LOS without the project is already worse than the standard, an impact is often defined as any increase in delay, and a mitigation requirement can be negotiated so that it results in a delay at or below the pre-project level. 2 EXISTING AND BASE CONDITIONS 2.1 STREETS AND INTERSECTIONS While the BMC requires impact analysis for Collector and Arterial intersections within ½ mile of a TIS-eligible project site, the City worked with the project development team on a more reasoned approach, given that there are a great many such intersections downtown, that a hotel project of this scale is not likely to generate very large amount of peak hour auto traffic that would justify most types of capacity-driven intersection improvements. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 5 Rouse Avenue (MT-86) is a north-south Principal Arterial with one travel lane and turn lanes at prominent intersections. Mendenhall Street is an east-west street that takes two forms in the project area. West of Rouse, it’s a one- way westbound Minor Arterial with two lanes and parallel parking on both sides. East of Rouse, it’s a two-way Local street with one lane in each direction. The remaining streets in the study area are all Local streets, with two-way traffic, no center line, and parking on both sides. These are Lamme Street, Bozeman Avenue, and Church Avenue. All street segments in the study area have a speed limit of 25 mph and are assumed to operate around that speed due to the prevalence of activity associated with pedestrian crossings, bicycle traffic (both in-lane and as crosswalk users) and on- street parallel parking. Church Avenue is included because it carries traffic associated with Hawthorne Elementary School. No hotel traffic is expected to use it. The Mendenhall/Rouse intersection is the only one of the four study intersections that operates with signal control. All others use Two Way Stop Control (TWSC). Exhibit 4 shows traffic control and lane arrangements schematically at each study intersection. Exhibit 4. Existing Road and Intersection Basics 2.2 HISTORICAL AND EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES There are three mid-block locations near the study intersections where MDT currently collects (or estimates) traffic counts annually. These locations are: Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 6  Mendenhall Street west of Bozeman Avenue,  Rouse Avenue south of Mendenhall Street, and  Rouse Avenue north of Mendenhall Street. Daily volumes are available for years as far back as 1980 at three of these four locations. Exhibit 5 shows historical annualized daily volumes in the project area. Exhibit 5. Historical Daily Traffic Volume Source: MDT Transportation Data Management System: retrieved 3/22/2024 This look back at historical volumes shows very little in terms of actionable trend information, with multiple outlier years that do not correspond well across the three locations. One of the only generalized findings is that annualized average daily traffic estimates are about the same or lower in 2023 in comparison to most previous years, though the Rouse location has seen generally increased volume. With no prominent trend in the recent daily traffic count data, there is no background growth assumed for peak hour intersection turning movement volumes in the conduct of the TIS for this project. Turning movement counts were collected by a third party vendor using Miovision camera technology at all six study intersections on Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Raw intersection count data are provided in Appendix A. Seasonally-adjusted peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 6 along with MDT’s 2023 average daily traffic volume estimates, which are color-coded by location to match the historical AADT chart shown previously in Exhibit 5. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 80828486889092949698000204060810121416182022VolumeYear Annualized Average Daily Traffic, 1980-2023 Mendenhall W. of Bozeman Rouse S. of Mendenhall Rouse N. of Mendenhall Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 7 Exhibit 6. Existing Traffic Volume 3 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 3.1 TRIP GENERATION There are multiple options for hotel lodging types available in the ITE data. The best fit for this project is the most general type. While this general hotel use can also have different rates for downtown and ‘center city core’ settings that are considerably lower, the ‘general urban/suburban’ setting was used here. This choice was made primarily because Bozeman is not the same type of “city” on which ITE data are typically based, but also because there are very limited study data for those alternate settings. The lack of frequent and robust transit service (especially rail) and the lack of office-job density within walking distance is likely to lead to more typical hotel access mode share—heavier on vehicles than the core of a more highly populated area. For the type of peak hour, trip generation based on ‘peak hour of adjacent street traffic’ was selected over ‘peak hour of the generator [the hotel]’ because (a) traffic generated by the hotel is relatively small compared to existing traffic in this area and (b) guest arrivals and departures are somewhat spread throughout the day, unlike traditional commercial uses. Three types of adjustments to trip generation were evaluated for this project. First, a discount is sometimes taken to reflect internal capture where multiple uses are present in a single project site. Because the hotels on which ITE rates are based also have dining and conference facilities, these are considered ‘embedded’ uses rather than separate ones and no such discount is taken. Second, some land uses attract trips that were Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 8 already using the adjacent or nearby road network by virtue of improved convenience over a similar site that would have been used before. These are called “pass-by” and “diverted-linked” trips. They also do not apply to a hotel use because nearly all hotel trips are planned in advance; a traveler does not notice a hotel during an existing journey and decide to stop there, like they would a gas station or restaurant, for example. Finally, this hotel is expected to feature available valet parking. An estimate of likely use level for this service was derived from an informal discussion with a management team member at a nearby hotel, albeit one about double this project’s size, that offers valet parking service for guests. This team member estimated that about one third of guests use the valet parking service, and that all attendants either returning from delivering a car to the valet lot or leaving the hotel with a guest’s car key to retrieve a key would make that trip between the hotel and the valet lot on foot. Because this Mendenhall Hotel project does not offer on-site off-street parking, those assumptions about proportion and mode are also used here. Such trips, with guests’ vehicles driven by contracted staff, represent additional traffic on the surrounding road network above and beyond ITE trip generation estimates. The project’s trip generation characteristics are indicated in Exhibit 7. Exhibit 7. Trip Generation Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use 310 Rate 7.99 per room 0.46 trips per room 0.59 trips per room Gross total trips for 71 rooms 567 33 42 In/out split 50% in, 50% out 56% in, 44% out 51% in, 49% out Hotel guest trips in/out 284 in, 284 out 18 in, 15 out 21 in, 21 out Estimated valet trips 189 11 14 Valet trips in/out 95 in, 95 out 6 in, 5 out 7 in, 7 out Total new project trips 756 44 56 New project trips in/out 378 in, 378 out 24 in, 20 out 28 in, 28 out Source: Rates per room from ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition. 3.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution and assignment estimates were adapted from the recent traffic study of the AC Hotel, completed in 2018 by Marvin & Associates, with some modifications to reflect this site’s location in a slightly different position relative to the center of downtown, and its size/nature as a ‘boutique’ hotel rather than one serving a broader and more general set of guests. Trip distribution and assignment percentages are shown in Exhibit 8 for hotel traffic along with the valet routing at full occupancy. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 9 Exhibit 8. Valet Routing and Trip Distribution Percentages for New Project Trips The net new project trips reflected as peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 9. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 10 Exhibit 9. Assignment of New Project Trips The estimated total intersection volumes with the project are shown in Exhibit 10. 4 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS The peak hour intersection Level of Service (LOS) and delay results with and without the project are shown in Exhibit 11. Directions are abbreviated where necessary. Analysis software results are provided in Appendix B. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 11 Exhibit 10. Total Traffic Volumes with the Project Exhibit 11. Peak Hour Intersection LOS and Delay Summary Traffic LOS (delay, seconds/vehicle) TWSC Worst Intersection Control No Project With Project Lane Group* AM 1. Lamme at Bozeman TWSC A ( 9.6) A ( 9.6) SB 2. Lamme at Rouse TWSC C (16.6) C (16.7) EB 3. Mendenhall at Bozeman TWSC B (11.3) B (11.5) NB 4. Mendenhall at Rouse Signal A ( 6.8) A ( 7.0) - PM 1. Lamme at Bozeman TWSC B (10.1) B (10.1) SB 2. Lamme at Rouse TWSC C (20.1) C (22.0) EB 3. Mendenhall at Bozeman TWSC B (13.9) B (14.2) NB 4. Mendenhall at Rouse Signal A ( 7.6) A ( 7.9) - * Worst lane group is the one that determines the intersection LOS at a Two-Way Stop Controlled intersection. The intersection analysis results indicate only minor changes in delay and no changes in LOS at all intersections analyzed. From an intersection/pedestrian safety standpoint, the project would generate a new peak hour trip approximately every 10 -15 minutes for two right-turning movements across pedestrian crosswalks (generally the most hazardous type) that directly serve Hawthorne Elementary School at its corner intersections. These are the eastbound Lamme right turn to Rouse and the southbound Rouse right turn to Mendenhall. Turning volumes at the Church Street corners of the school property (northeast and southeast) are not expected to be affected by the project. No traffic impact mitigations are required as a result of the proposed hotel. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 12 Given the size and nature of the project, no substantial additional street maintenance is expected to be necessary as a result. Traffic calming improvements are expected to be neither necessary nor appropriate on the street segments that would carry hotel-generated traffic. 5 ON-STREET PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY With no new off-street parking proposed to be built on the hotel site, all hotel parking and loading facilities for guests and employees is expected to occur offsite. Leased spaces in the lot immediately across Bozeman Creek to the east will accommodate overnight parking demand, but valet and loading activity will occur in front of the hotel on Mendenhall. At the request of City of Bozeman staff, the project team completed a detailed study of on-street parking on the block of Mendenhall Street between Rouse and Bozeman Avenues. The premise of this request is that sufficient unused parking capacity should exist today at peak times if the project applicant seeks to convert existing on-street parking space to valet-only use. 5.1 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS In 2017, Montana State University’s Western Transportation Institute completed a study of downtown parking for the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and the City of Bozeman Parking Commission. This study included the area where the proposed hotel will be located and contained parking inventory and utilization information. While the data in the 2017 study was granular enough to be considered useful as a reference point for this study, the following changes and updates were made for this focused study of one block of Mendenhall:  Updates to the number of spaces based on changes in loading zone demarcation,  Updates to the number of spaces based on typical use of on-street parking in this block,  More frequent parking space utilization observations: every 5 minutes instead of every hour,  Focus only on regular two-hour spaces—ADA, bus stop, and loading zone areas were not studied,  Focus only on utilization (also called occupancy), with no attention to turnover, and  Focus only on the morning (8-10 a.m.) and afternoon (4-7 p.m.) times based on hotel-specific peaks. The focused Mendenhall parking study conducted for this project used average occupancy rates for two consecutive days: Thursday and Friday October 5th and 6th, 2024. Each of the 23 two-hour parking spaces in this block (10 on the north side, 13 on the south) was observed every five minutes during the peak periods indicated above. These time periods were chosen based on (1) supplemental ITE trip generation for hotels and (2) a conversation with the valet parking manager at the AC Hotel nearby regarding the busiest times of day for parking activity for a hotel in downtown Bozeman. Parking industry experts have for several decades identified 85% utilization as a reasonable optimum for on- street parking. It is included in a 2019 whitepaper, by Rick Williams Consulting, presented to the City of Bozeman as part of its Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan. This rate was noted in the 2017 MSU study but its authors did not identify it as a maximum threshold. The 2019 whitepaper indicates that “[t]he industry has found that the 85% Rule is an objective measure of constraint and for targeting problems within a parking system.” To that end, it has been treated as a general upper limit here. Finally, it is worth noting that a broad range of vehicle types and parking behaviors can affect parking utilization. Lengths of normal passenger vehicles in Bozeman vary widely, from long pickup trucks to small compact cars. In addition, drivers’ tolerance of gaps between cars and desired clearance to the ends of delineated parking areas also required interpretation of whether a space was occupied, and, in some cases, the presence of either more or fewer vehicles in a length of curb than it would appear to be designed for. There were only a couple of observations involving a pickup truck or large SUV effectively occupying two spaces. It was much more common for smaller vehicles and closer spacings to yield full usage of continuous on-street parking areas. In the case of the two spaces over Bozeman creek on the south side of Mendenhall, there were Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 13 two instances of three vehicles occupying the available space because the first and last vehicles’ bumpers overhung the painted area separating the parking area from the adjacent driveways. 5.2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The compiled parking utilization percentages for each day and each side of the street are presented in Exhibit 12 along with aggregated totals for each peak period. The values by day and side of the street indicate the sum of all times any space was occupied for any 5-minute time block. Raw observations specific to each parking space are provided, for the PM peak period only, in Appendix C. Exhibit 12. Parking Utilization Calculations North Side (10 spaces) South Side (13) Both Sides (23) Capacity* Utilization 8-10 a.m. Thursday 40 98 138 552 25% Friday 56 88 144 552 26% Average 48 93 141 Capacity* 240 312 552 Utilization 20% 30% 25.5% 4-7 p.m. Thursday 344 433 777 828 94% Friday 351 457 808 828 98% Average 347.5 445 792.5 Capacity* 360 468 828 Utilization 97% 95% 95.7% * Capacity = (# of spaces) x (# of 5-minute time blocks in study period [12 per hour]). In the course of gathering field observations, it became apparent immediately that there was no substantial on- street parking activity during the morning peak period and that the afternoon period would govern the findings regarding critical parking capacity on the subject block of Mendenhall. Utilization was similar on both days, with slightly higher activity on Friday. This is consistent with the large number of restaurants and bars accessible from within one block of this group of parking spaces. The PM period utilization shown by this study is higher than the 85% level, which indicates that some form of action could be warranted to improve parking conditions even without the proposed hotel project. Parking behavior observed on this block during the study indicated that in aggregate, the average curb space used per parked vehicles was about 22 feet. As described earlier, the project will remove an existing driveway and create additional curb space. Given the width and position of this driveway, its removal will increase the available continuous curb space on the south side of the street by an amount equivalent to two parking spaces. This is because the current curb area is configured as follows: 110-foot area for 5 spaces + 33-foot driveway + 55-foot area for 2 spaces = 7 spaces in 198 feet Once the driveway is removed, that 198-foot space will all be available for curb use, and would allow for 9 spaces averaging 22 feet in length, the same as the current average for on-street spaces studied, as noted above. These two parking spaces will be crucial to the operation of the proposed hotel in the function of valet- only spaces, and the applicant team believes that the results of the parking utilization study documented here indicate the need for additional review for the benefit of all current and future users of curb space on this block, outside the context of traffic impacts. This concludes the Boutique Hotel Mendenhall TIS. Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 Appendix A Appendix A: Raw Traffic Count Data Start Time Right Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-Turn 7:00 AM 1200000001001300 7:15 AM 0400023012001120 7:30 AM 0510011032003600 7:45 AM 0550003053103910 8:00 AM 1310333024000900 8:15 AM 0530032014201600 8:30 AM 0720240014000300 8:45 AM 0830043023100300 9:00 AM 1710122006503300 9:15 AM 0 11 00000025102110 9:30 AM 0410131042102400 9:45 AM 0300221025101200 3:00 PM 0630163026001410 3:15 PM 17001340713201400 3:30 PM 3310010064101900 3:45 PM 1910433063102600 4:00 PM 0 10 21233056202800 4:15 PM 0 10 30111032004800 4:30 PM 1630122086101620 4:45 PM 0 11 10202066211710 5:00 PM 1840243098204710 5:15 PM 08000120681141400 5:30 PM 112022004100021300 5:45 PM 17002210550011010 6:00 PM 0710212166104700 6:15 PM 1610344083000410 6:30 PM 0510233010102620 6:45 PM 1830211063206610 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Type Road Classification Totals Bozeman Avenue Lamme Street Bozeman Avenue Lamme Street Site Code Project Lamme & Bozeman Study Name Start Date 03/19/2024 Start Time 7:00 AM 406 Traffic - Downtown Bozeman Start Time Right Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-Turn 7:00 AM 0 46 100000027001110 7:15 AM 3 47 301110143100010 7:30 AM 1 50 603010144105130 7:45 AM 4 80 18 04120859409210 8:00 AM 6 73 38 04120580005600 8:15 AM 3 89 807110174204430 8:30 AM 2 87 403130065703210 8:45 AM 1 76 203000090305120 9:00 AM 2 77 404210068103310 9:15 AM 2 67 703010260202010 9:30 AM 4 73 103030068206130 9:45 AM 4 93 204010360204010 3:00 PM 2 93 705300473605230 3:15 PM 3 91 5083201107006220 3:30 PM 1 98 4031202890010220 3:45 PM 4 110 701000071706440 4:00 PM 1 120 4043101902010230 4:15 PM 2 114 504010091109500 4:30 PM 4 106 407110384209530 4:45 PM 1 112 3042004692010420 5:00 PM 3 140 3 0 10 1102904011490 5:15 PM 3 100 4070103953012530 5:30 PM 6 119 403110087409550 5:45 PM 6 91 705100048808430 6:00 PM 5 109 606020075206410 6:15 PM 4 76 205210145605230 6:30 PM 2 86 301120152509210 6:45 PM 5 82 5042100471010320 Rouse Avenue Lamme Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Type Road Classification Totals Rouse Avenue Lamme Street Site Code Project Lamme & RouseStudy Name Start Date 03/19/2024 Start Time 7:00 AM 406 Traffic - Downtown Bozeman Start Time Right Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-Turn 7:00 AM 20002290003600000 7:15 AM 33000361003400000 7:30 AM 34002423004800000 7:45 AM 5500457300111500000 8:00 AM 200046520041100000 8:15 AM 330026340051700000 8:30 AM 540005040051800000 8:45 AM 440016520092200000 3:00 PM 530036810051600000 3:15 PM 6600680600121400000 3:30 PM 320048140071000000 3:45 PM 8 10 0 0 5 64 30071200000 4:00 PM 10 40048250081000000 4:15 PM 64000794005900000 4:30 PM 5900811210071000000 4:45 PM 12 5 0 0 10 86 4009900000 5:00 PM 890069430091600000 5:15 PM 660059830012800000 5:30 PM 640027930010700000 5:45 PM 450037530011900000 406 Traffic - Downtown Bozeman Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Type Road Classification Totals Bozeman Avenue Mendenhall Street Bozeman Avenue Mendenhall Street Site Code Project Mendenhall & Bozeman Study Name Start Date 03/19/2024 Start Time 7:00 AM Start Time Right Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-TurnRight Thru Left U-Turn 7:00 AM 8 30 9 0 7 20 0 0 2 20 300000 7:15 AM 15 18 15 0 7 14 0 0 0 39 600000 7:30 AM 26 23 6 0 5 16 0 0 2 41 500000 7:45 AM 25 45 19 0 17 32 0 0 5 58 900000 8:00 AM 24 43 11 0 26 40 3 0 4 61 11 00000 8:15 AM 28 54 17 0 14 35 6 0 2 62 10 00000 8:30 AM 28 57 4 0 12 19 0 0 1 62 12 00000 8:45 AM 34 42 6 0 16 28 1 0 2 79 900000 3:00 PM 27 56 20 0 20 26 2 0 4 63 15 00000 3:15 PM 32 49 17 0 27 32 1 0 2 74 25 00000 3:30 PM 30 76 6 0 12 40 1 0 1 82 18 00000 3:45 PM 32 65 13 0 21 29 2 0 5 57 900000 4:00 PM 47 72 15 0 21 31 1 0 1 76 19 00000 4:15 PM 34 69 11 0 16 34 1 0 3 78 14 00000 4:30 PM 40 68 16 0 12 60 1 0 1 78 16 00000 4:45 PM 38 68 16 0 20 40 2 0 1 56 18 00000 5:00 PM 45 87 21 0 22 43 5 0 1 71 15 00000 5:15 PM 47 57 9 0 19 38 0 0 2 85 21 00000 5:30 PM 36 69 21 0 14 39 0 0 2 83 11 00000 5:45 PM 32 54 11 0 13 25 0 0 1 45 20 00000 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Type Road Classification Totals Rouse Avenue Mendenhall Street Rouse Avenue Mendenhall Street Site Code Project Mendenhall & RouseStudy Name Start Date 03/19/2024 Start Time 7:00 AM 406 Traffic - Downtown Bozeman Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 Appendix B Appendix B: Intersection Analysis Software Output Scenario Order: No Project AM No Project PM With Project AM With Project PM HCM 7th TWSC 1: Bozeman Avenue & Lamme Street 03/27/2024 No Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 26 4 8 10 5 3 14 9 11 19 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 26 4 8 10 5 3 14 9 11 19 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 4 4 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 Mvmt Flow 1 32 5 10 12 6 4 17 11 14 23 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 22 0 0 39 0 0 86 80 41 85 80 21 Stage 1 ------39 39 -38 38 - Stage 2 ------47 41 -47 42 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 --4.1 --7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.1 5.5 -6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.1 5.5 -6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 --2.2 --3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1607 --1584 --905 814 1036 898 809 1053 Stage 1 ------981 866 -974 861 - Stage 2 ------972 865 -964 858 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1603 --1581 --867 804 1030 858 799 1047 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------867 804 -858 799 - Stage 1 ------978 864 -966 853 - Stage 2 ------935 857 -930 856 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.23 2.54 9.25 9.57 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)878 57 --587 --825 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 0.001 --0.006 --0.046 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)9.3 7.2 0 -7.3 0 -9.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A -A A -A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 0 --0 --0.1 HCM 7th TWSC 2: Rouse Avenue & Lamme Street 03/27/2024 No Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 14 20 8 4 17 13 269 14 66 318 14 Future Vol, veh/h 5 14 20 8 4 17 13 269 14 66 318 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 9 9 0 4 2 0 25 25 0 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------100 --150 -- Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, %15 15 15 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 6 16 22 9 4 19 15 302 16 74 357 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 853 888 376 887 888 339 375 0 0 343 0 0 Stage 1 515 515 -364 364 ------- Stage 2 338 372 -522 523 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.25 6.65 6.35 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.14 --4.15 -- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.25 5.65 -6.1 5.5 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.25 5.65 -6.1 5.5 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.635 4.135 3.435 3.5 4 3.3 2.236 --2.245 -- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 265 269 642 267 285 708 1173 --1199 -- Stage 1 519 514 -659 627 ------- Stage 2 650 597 -541 534 ------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 233 243 636 217 257 688 1170 --1171 -- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 233 243 -217 257 ------- Stage 1 485 480 -635 605 ------- Stage 2 617 575 -469 499 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v16.65 15.49 0.36 1.37 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1170 --353 376 1171 -- HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 --0.124 0.087 0.063 -- HCM Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 --16.6 15.5 8.3 -- HCM Lane LOS A --C C A -- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0 --0.4 0.3 0.2 -- HCM 7th TWSC 3: Bozeman Avenue & Mendenhall Street 03/27/2024 No Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 12 235 7 66 22 0 0 11 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 12 235 7 66 22 0 0 11 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 12 12 0 9 6 0 1 1 0 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 6 6 6 4 4 4 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 14 267 8 75 25 0 0 13 16 Major/Minor Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 12 0 0 185 323 --319 153 Stage 1 ---12 12 --307 - Stage 2 ---173 311 --12 - Critical Hdwy 4.22 --7.58 6.58 --6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -------5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---6.58 5.58 ---- Follow-up Hdwy 2.26 --3.54 4.04 --4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1577 --753 588 0 0 601 873 Stage 1 -----0 0 664 - Stage 2 ---806 652 0 0 -- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1559 --709 571 --583 865 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---709 571 --583 - Stage 1 -------652 - Stage 2 ---769 640 ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.4 11.33 10.26 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)669 163 --713 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.15 0.009 --0.04 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)11.3 7.3 0.1 -10.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.5 0 --0.1 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 03/27/2024 No Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 10 118 66 14 255 9 37 189 110 Future Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 10 118 66 14 255 9 37 189 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 124 69 15 268 9 39 199 116 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cap, veh/h 54 613 283 540 512 17 502 533 450 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 239 2701 1245 933 1454 49 966 1514 1277 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 66 69 15 0 277 39 199 116 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1502 1438 1245 933 0 1503 966 1514 1277 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.8 2.3 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.9 1.1 2.6 0.0 3.5 4.3 2.3 1.5 Prop In Lane 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 341 326 283 540 0 529 502 533 450 V/C Ratio(X)0.20 0.20 0.24 0.03 0.00 0.52 0.08 0.37 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2616 2505 2169 1727 0 2442 1731 2459 2075 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.4 7.4 7.5 6.7 0.0 6.1 7.8 5.7 5.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.7 7.7 8.0 6.7 0.0 6.9 7.9 6.2 5.8 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 204 292 354 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 6.9 6.2 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 13.4 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.6 38.6 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 6.3 3.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 1.9 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.8 HCM 7th LOS A HCM 7th TWSC 1: Bozeman Avenue & Lamme Street 03/27/2024 No Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 33 10 9 7 5 8 27 28 8 32 2 Future Vol, veh/h 4 33 10 9 7 5 8 27 28 8 32 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 14 14 0 9 2 0 11 11 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 40 12 11 8 6 10 33 34 10 39 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 23 0 0 66 0 0 121 115 71 119 118 22 Stage 1 ------69 69 -42 42 - Stage 2 ------51 45 -77 75 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 --4.1 --7.12 6.52 6.22 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 -6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 -6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 --2.2 --3.518 4.018 3.318 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1592 --1549 --854 776 992 862 776 1060 Stage 1 ------941 837 -977 864 - Stage 2 ------961 857 -937 836 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1578 --1528 --789 751 968 773 752 1049 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------789 751 -773 752 - Stage 1 ------925 823 -962 850 - Stage 2 ------907 844 -857 822 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.62 3.16 9.71 10.03 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)840 146 --712 --766 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 0.003 --0.007 --0.066 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)9.7 7.3 0 -7.4 0 -10 HCM Lane LOS A A A -A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3 0 --0 --0.2 HCM 7th TWSC 2: Rouse Avenue & Lamme Street 03/27/2024 No Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 17 41 3 4 23 13 329 9 14 455 0 Future Vol, veh/h 18 17 41 3 4 23 13 329 9 14 455 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 5 5 0 5 4 0 19 19 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------100 --150 -- Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, %1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 21 20 47 3 5 26 15 378 10 16 523 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 975 997 532 1002 991 407 527 0 0 408 0 0 Stage 1 559 559 -432 432 ------- Stage 2 415 437 -570 559 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.12 --4.11 -- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 -6.1 5.5 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 -6.1 5.5 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.5 4 3.3 2.218 --2.209 -- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 232 245 549 223 248 648 1040 --1157 -- Stage 1 515 513 -606 586 ------- Stage 2 616 581 -510 514 ------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 210 233 545 178 236 633 1036 --1136 -- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 210 233 -178 236 ------- Stage 1 506 503 -586 567 ------- Stage 2 575 562 -439 505 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v20.11 14.16 0.32 0.25 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1036 --325 428 1136 -- HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 --0.269 0.081 0.014 -- HCM Control Delay (s/veh)8.5 --20.1 14.2 8.2 -- HCM Lane LOS A --C B A -- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0 --1.1 0.3 0 -- HCM 7th TWSC 3: Bozeman Avenue & Mendenhall Street 03/27/2024 No Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 11 377 28 42 36 0 0 28 30 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 11 377 28 42 36 0 0 28 30 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 23 0 30 30 0 23 31 0 17 17 0 31 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 12 401 30 45 38 0 0 30 32 Major/Minor Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 30 0 0 300 507 --492 269 Stage 1 ---30 30 --462 - Stage 2 ---270 477 --30 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 --7.56 6.56 --6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -------5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---6.56 5.56 ---- Follow-up Hdwy 2.21 --3.53 4.03 --4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1589 --627 465 0 0 480 735 Stage 1 -----0 0 568 - Stage 2 ---710 552 0 0 -- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1543 --539 438 --452 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---539 438 --452 - Stage 1 -------551 - Stage 2 ---636 535 ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.25 13.9 12.23 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)487 87 --560 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.17 0.008 --0.11 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)13.9 7.4 0.1 -12.2 HCM Lane LOS B A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.6 0 --0.4 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 03/27/2024 No Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 8 175 71 68 250 5 60 270 164 Future Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 8 175 71 68 250 5 60 270 164 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1550 1550 1550 1563 1563 1563 1538 1538 1538 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 190 77 74 272 5 65 293 178 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 36 751 314 458 608 11 506 612 496 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 136 2880 1206 829 1528 28 971 1538 1247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 97 77 74 0 277 65 293 178 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1544 1473 1206 829 0 1556 971 1538 1247 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.1 0.0 3.8 1.5 4.1 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 1.5 1.5 6.3 0.0 3.8 5.4 4.1 2.9 Prop In Lane 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 402 384 314 458 0 619 506 612 496 V/C Ratio(X)0.25 0.25 0.24 0.16 0.00 0.45 0.13 0.48 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2182 2082 1706 1221 0 2051 1400 2027 1644 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.9 0.0 6.5 8.4 6.6 6.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.1 0.0 7.0 8.5 7.1 6.6 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 276 351 536 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.9 7.4 7.1 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.7 16.7 12.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.6 38.6 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 7.4 3.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 3.0 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 HCM 7th LOS A HCM 7th TWSC 1: Bozeman Avenue & Lamme Street 10/07/2024 With Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 26 4 8 10 5 3 14 9 11 19 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 26 4 8 10 5 3 14 9 11 19 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr302203304403 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles, % 000000000333 Mvmt Flow 1 32 5 10 12 6 4 17 11 14 23 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 22 0 0 39 0 0 86 80 41 85 80 21 Stage 1 ------3939-3838- Stage 2 ------4741-4742- Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.15.5-6.135.53- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.15.5-6.135.53- Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1607 - - 1584 - - 905 814 1036 898 809 1053 Stage 1 ------981866-974861- Stage 2 ------972865-964858- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1603 - - 1581 - - 867 804 1030 858 799 1047 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------867804-858799- Stage 1 ------978864-966853- Stage 2 ------935857-930856- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.23 2.54 9.25 9.57 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 878 57 - - 587 - - 825 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 0.001 - - 0.006 - - 0.046 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 7.2 0 - 7.3 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 HCM 7th TWSC 2: Rouse Avenue & Lamme Street 10/07/2024 With Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 14 25 8 4 17 13 269 14 66 324 14 Future Vol, veh/h 7 14 25 8 4 17 13 269 14 66 324 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr40990420252502 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------100--150-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 151515000444555 Mvmt Flow 8 16 28 9 4 19 15 302 16 74 364 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 860 894 383 894 894 339 382 0 0 343 0 0 Stage 1 522 522 - 364 364 ------- Stage 2 338 372 - 529 530 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.25 6.65 6.35 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.14 - - 4.15 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 16.255.65-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.255.65-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.635 4.135 3.435 3.5 4 3.3 2.236 - - 2.245 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 262 267 637 264 282 708 1166 - - 1199 - - Stage 1 515 510 - 659 627 ------- Stage 2 650 597 - 537 530 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 231 241 630 212 255 688 1164 - - 1171 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 231 241 - 212 255 ------- Stage 1 481 477 - 635 605 ------- Stage 2 617 575 - 460 495 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v16.72 15.63 0.36 1.35 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1164 - - 359 371 1171 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.144 0.088 0.063 - - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 - - 16.7 15.6 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C C A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.3 0.2 - - HCM 7th TWSC 3: Bozeman Avenue & Mendenhall Street 10/07/2024 With Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 14 244 14 66 22 0 0 11 14 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 14 244 14 66 22 0 0 11 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr90121209601106 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 000666444000 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 16 277 16 75 25 0 0 13 16 Major/Minor Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 12 0 0 195 346 - - 338 162 Stage 1 - - - 12 12 - - 326 - Stage 2 - - - 183 334 - - 12 - Critical Hdwy 4.22 - - 7.58 6.58 - - 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -------5.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 6.58 5.58 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.26 - - 3.54 4.04 - - 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1577 - - 742 571 0 0 586 861 Stage 1 -----00652- Stage 2 - - - 796 637 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1559 - - 696 554 - - 568 854 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - 696 554 - - 568 - Stage 1 -------639- Stage 2 - - - 757 624 - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.44 11.5 10.37 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 654 172 - - 699 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.153 0.01 - - 0.041 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 7.3 0.1 - 10.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - - 0.1 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 10/07/2024 With Project, AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 10 118 66 23 255 9 37 196 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 10 118 66 23 255 9 37 196 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 1514 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 124 69 24 268 9 39 206 120 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 555555555 Cap, veh/h 58 655 296 522 509 17 490 530 448 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 239 2701 1220 925 1454 49 966 1514 1279 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 66 69 24 0 277 39 206 120 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1502 1438 1220 925 0 1503 966 1514 1279 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.0 3.6 0.8 2.5 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.9 1.1 3.0 0.0 3.6 4.4 2.5 1.7 Prop In Lane 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 348 296 522 0 526 490 530 448 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.53 0.08 0.39 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2534 2426 2059 1654 0 2365 1672 2381 2013 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.1 0.0 6.4 8.1 6.0 5.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.6 7.6 7.9 7.2 0.0 7.2 8.2 6.5 6.0 LnGrp LOS AAAA AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 204 301 365 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 7.2 6.5 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 13.6 10.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.6 38.6 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 6.4 3.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 2.0 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0 HCM 7th LOS A HCM 7th TWSC 1: Bozeman Avenue & Lamme Street 10/07/2024 With Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 33 10 9 7 5 8 27 37 8 32 2 Future Vol, veh/h 4 33 10 9 7 5 8 27 37 8 32 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr9014140920111102 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 222000222000 Mvmt Flow 5 40 12 11 8 6 10 33 45 10 39 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 23 0 0 66 0 0 121 115 71 119 118 22 Stage 1 ------6969-4242- Stage 2 ------5145-7775- Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.1 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.125.52-6.15.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.125.52-6.15.5- Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.2 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1592 - - 1549 - - 854 776 992 862 776 1060 Stage 1 ------941837-977864- Stage 2 ------961857-937836- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1578 - - 1528 - - 789 751 968 764 752 1049 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------789751-764752- Stage 1 ------925823-962850- Stage 2 ------907844-847822- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.62 3.16 9.69 10.04 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 854 146 - - 712 - - 764 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.102 0.003 - - 0.007 - - 0.066 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.7 7.3 0 - 7.4 0 - 10 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 HCM 7th TWSC 2: Rouse Avenue & Lamme Street 10/07/2024 With Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 24 41 3 4 23 13 329 9 14 461 0 Future Vol, veh/h 20 24 41 3 4 23 13 329 9 14 461 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr50550540191904 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------100--150-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 111000222111 Mvmt Flow 23 28 47 3 5 26 15 378 10 16 530 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 981 1003 539 1013 998 407 534 0 0 408 0 0 Stage 1 566 566 - 432 432 ------- Stage 2 415 437 - 581 566 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.12 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 16.115.51-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.115.51-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.5 4 3.3 2.218 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 243 545 219 246 648 1034 - - 1157 - - Stage 1 511 509 - 606 586 ------- Stage 2 616 581 - 503 511 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 208 231 540 168 233 633 1030 - - 1136 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 208 231 - 168 233 ------- Stage 1 502 500 - 586 567 ------- Stage 2 575 562 - 426 501 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v22.05 14.32 0.32 0.24 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1030 - - 308 421 1136 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.317 0.082 0.014 - - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.5 - - 22 14.3 8.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.3 0.3 0 - - HCM 7th TWSC 3: Bozeman Avenue & Mendenhall Street 10/07/2024 With Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 13 390 37 42 36 0 0 28 30 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 13 390 37 42 36 0 0 28 30 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 23 0 30 30 0 23 31 0 17 17 0 31 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 000111333000 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 14 415 39 45 38 0 0 30 32 Major/Minor Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 30 0 0 311 535 - - 515 281 Stage 1 - - - 30 30 - - 485 - Stage 2 - - - 281 505 - - 30 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 7.56 6.56 - - 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -------5.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 6.56 5.56 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.21 - - 3.53 4.03 - - 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1589 - - 616 448 0 0 466 722 Stage 1 -----00555- Stage 2 - - - 699 536 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1543 - - 527 421 - - 438 706 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - 527 421 - - 438 - Stage 1 -------537- Stage 2 - - - 624 519 - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.28 14.24 12.44 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 472 95 - - 545 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.176 0.009 - - 0.113 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 14.2 7.4 0.1 - 12.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0.4 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 10/07/2024 With Project, PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report 406 Traffic Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 00081757179250560279168 Future Volume (veh/h) 00081757179250560279168 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.90 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1550 1550 1550 1563 1563 1563 1538 1538 1538 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 190 77 86 272 5 65 303 183 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222111333 Cap, veh/h 37 781 319 446 620 11 502 624 515 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 136 2880 1177 821 1528 28 972 1538 1270 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 97 77 86 0 277 65 303 183 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1544 1473 1177 821 0 1556 972 1538 1270 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.7 0.0 4.0 1.6 4.5 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 1.6 1.6 7.2 0.0 4.0 5.6 4.5 3.1 Prop In Lane 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 419 399 319 446 0 631 502 624 515 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.00 0.44 0.13 0.49 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2065 1970 1574 1137 0 1941 1320 1919 1584 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.8 8.8 8.8 9.5 0.0 6.6 8.7 6.8 6.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.7 0.0 7.1 8.8 7.4 6.8 LnGrp LOS AAAA AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 276 363 551 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.1 7.7 7.4 Approach LOS A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.6 17.6 13.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.6 38.6 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 7.6 3.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 3.1 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.9 HCM 7th LOS A Boutique Hotel Mendenhall Traffic Impact Study October 2024 Appendix C Appendix C: Parking Utilization Study Raw Data