The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About012 - Appendix K - Traffic Impact Study FEBRUARY 2025 TRAFFI C I M PACT STU DY . - - � �� . � . � � - - - - � . ENGINEERING, PL L C Prepared For Meadow Bridge, LLC � �J � _ � �. �. � f _ ENGINEERIAF�; �LL,� - � J Traffic Impact Study MEADOW BRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana Prepared For Meadow Bridge, LLC February 2025 Project No. 24-0109 ••��N T A.Nq'•-. •* OM EAS 0 . 14769 PE c 'O�' 2 10/ZOZS ��: % •.��'• ��: o�'�� ENS��•��:' S�ON AL��• PTOE Certification - 2020 619 Milestone Drive� Belgrade,Montana 59714� (406)209-3960� Table of Contents � i Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Existing Conditions 8 Purpose of Report&Study Objectives .............. 1 Study Area Land Use ...................................... 8 StudyArea..................................................... 1 StudyArea Intersections............................... 13 Location&Land Use.......................................1 Alternative Modes of Transportation.............. 15 StudyArea Intersections&TrafficVolumes......1 Pedestrians&Bicyclists................................15 Proposed Development...................................2 Transit..........................................................15 Projected Traffic Volumes...............................2 Traffic Volumes............................................ 15 Through Traffic Projections..............................2 Count Locations&Data................................15 Total Traffic Projections...................................3 Safety......................................................... 19 Transportation Analyses..................................3 Projected Traffic 19 Euisting Conditions.........................................3 Operations............................................3 Through Traffic Projections........................... 19 Safety....................................................3 Background Development.............................19 Projected Traffic..............................................3 Growth Rate Projections................................20 Operations............................................3 Projected Through Traffic Volumes.................20 Conclusions&Recommendations....................3 Total Traffic Projections................................ 27 StudyArea Intersections..................................3 SiteCirculation...............................................3 Transportation Analyses 27 Alternative Modes ofTransportation................4 Qnalysis Scenarios....................................... 27 Pedestrians& Bicyclists......................4 Transit Service 4 Analysis Methodologies................................ 27 � ..................................... Improvements&Traffic Control Guidance........4 Operations....................................................27 Proposed Study Area Development 5 unsignalized Intersections................31 Signalized Intersections....................31 Proposed Development Plan............................5 Traffic Impact Analysis Horizon........................5 Transportation Elements of the Proposed Development...................................5 Trip Generation...............................................5 Trip Distribution..............................................8 Traffic Assignment..........................................8 Pedestrians&Bicyclists..................................8 Transit Service................................................8 _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � ii � Table of Contents Assessment of Impacts 35 Appendices Traffic Operations ........................................35 AppendixA Safety.........................................................35 Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, &Standards of Significance Alternative Modes of Transportation ..............35 Appendix B Existing Conditions.......................................35 Proposed Development.................................35 Traffic Count Data Pedestrians& Bicyclists....................35 Appendix C Transit Service ...................................35 Trip Generation Analyses Compliance with Applicable Local Codes........35 Appendix D Conclusions & Recommendations 36 Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) StudyArea Intersections...............................36 Analyses for Vehicular Traffic Site Circulation............................................36 Appendix E Alternative Modes of Transportation ..............36 Capacity& Level of Service Analvses Pedestrians&Bicyclists................................36 E-1: Intersection Operations Summaries TransitService 36 E-2: 2024 Existing Conditions .............................................. Improvements&Traffic Control Guidance ......36 E-3: 2030 Background Traffic E-4: 2030 Estimated Total Traffic References 37 . �J � . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��.�s�c List of Tables&Figures � iii List of Tables Table 1: Estimated Project Trip Generation .........................................................................................................................5 Table 2: Study Area Intersections Existing Characteristics.............................................................................................. 13 Table 3: Missing Sidewalk Sections in Study Area ........................................................................................................... 15 Table 4: Estimated Average Annual Growth Rates........................................................................................................... 20 Table A-1: Level of Service Criteria for Stop-Controlled Intersections.............................................................................A-1 Table A-2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections......................................................................................A-2 _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � iv � List of Tables&Figures List of Figures Figure 1: Development Location &Study Area ....................................................................................................................6 Figure 2: Proposed Subdivision Layout................................................................................................................................7 Figure 3: Estimated Primary Trip Distribution......................................................................................................................9 Figure 4: Estimated Subdivision Traffic Assignment - Intersections 1 through 4 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 10 Figure 5: Estimated Subdivision Traffic Assignment - Intersections 5 through 8 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 11 Figure 6: Subdivision Traffic Assignment � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT) Volumes............................... 12 Figure 7: 2024 Existing Traffic Volumes - Intersections 1 through 4 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 16 Figure 8: 2024 Existing Traffic Volumes - Intersections 5 through 8 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 17 Figure 9: 2024 Existing Traffic Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT) ............................................... 18 Figure 10: Estimated 2024 - 2030 Traffic Growth & Redistribution Intersections 1 through 4 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 21 Figure 11: Estimated 2024 - 2030 Traffic Growth & Redistribution Intersections 5 through 8 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 22 Figure 12: Estimated 2024 - 2030 Traffic Growth & Redistribution Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT) ..................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 13: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic - Intersections 1 through 4 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 24 Figure 14: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic - Intersections 5 through 8 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 25 Figure 15: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT).................... 26 Figure 16: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic - Intersections 1 through 4 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 28 Figure 17: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic - Intersections 5 through 8 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................. 29 Figure 18: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT)................................30 Figure 19: Traffic Operations Summary for 2024 Existing Conditions............................................................................32 Figure 20: Traffic Operations Summaryfor Estimated 2030 Background Traffic..........................................................33 Figure 21: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Total Traffic......................................................................34 Figure A-1: Control Delay and Flow Rate...........................................................................................................................A-1 _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 1 Purpose of Report &Study Objectives This report summarizes the results of a traffic impact study conducted by E5 Engineering, PLLC for the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The objectives of the traffic study are as follows: ■ Determine the existing vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit conditions in the study area to establish a base condition. ■ Assess the impact that the proposed development will have on transportation conditions in the area. ■ Evaluate proposed site access operations and interaction with adjacent development accesses. ■ Determine any street, access, bicycle, and pedestrian modifications and/or improvements that will be necessary to effectively accommodate and mitigate future conditions. Study Area Location & Land Use The proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development is vacant land located on 25.22 acres of a portion of Certificate of Survey No. 2286 (COS 2286) less Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 1. The project is bounded by South 23rd Avenue to the east, Blackwood Road to the south, existing residential lots and Parkway Avenue to the west, and Enterprise Boulevard to the north. The area offers a mixture of moderate density residential uses and agricultural lands. Study Area Intersections&Traffic Volumes Current vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions within the study area, peak period traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle counts conducted by E5 Engineering, PLLC were utilized for the study area intersections based on averages taken for two weekdays at each location for September 10 and 11, 2024 (Tuesday and Wednesday).The counts were conducted during the morning(7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and evening(4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. The results of the traffic counts showed that the peak hours occurred between 7:45 and 8:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The count data were not adjusted for seasonal or daily variations to account for variations that may occur throughout the year from when the counts were taken. Seasonal and daily adjustment factors available through MDT would result in reductions to observed counts; therefore, no adjustments were made to maintain a level of conservatism to the analyses herein. The intersections evaluated included the following: ■ South 19th Avenue & Blackwood Road ■ South 27th Avenue & Kurk Drive ■ Blackwood Road &South 23rd Avenue ■ West Graf Street&South 27th Avenue ■ Blackwood Road & Parkway Avenue ■ West Graf Street& Enterprise Boulevard ■ Blackwood Road &South 27th Avenue ■ South 19th Avenue &West Graf Street _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 2 Alternative Modes of Transportation There are sidewalks available for pedestrians, as previously noted, within the study area on each side of roadways apart from some missing segments primarily adjacent to undeveloped areas along limited portions of South 19th Avenue, Blackwood Road, South 27th Avenue, West Graf Street, and South 23rd Avenue.As noted previously, designated bicycle lanes are currently included on South 27th Avenue and West Graf Street. They are also present on South 19th Avenue north of West Graf Street. Shoulders on South 19th Avenue south of West Graf Street to Blackwood Road may also function as usable bike lanes. Streamline does not currently have any routes in the vicinity of the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood. This may change in the future with growth in the area, increased transit utilization, changes to routes based on population or activity centers, and maintaining system reliability. Proposed Development The proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development has been evaluated based on the following: ■ The proposed development includes 45 residential lots with 22 of those lots potentially accommodating accessory dwelling units (ADUs)for a total of 67 potential dwelling units. ■ Estimated trip generation for the proposed development was derived utilizing rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition based on the single-family detached housing land use (ITE Land Use Code 210) with a general urban/suburban setting or location and proposed number of dwelling units as the independent variable. ■ The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 698 average weekday vehicle trips and 52 vehicle trips during the weekday,AM peak hour plus 68 during the weekday, PM peak hour. ■ Pedestrian and/or bicyclist-related trips are anticipated to comprise a portion of trips with the proposed development. ■ Sidewalk connections are proposed within the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood in accordance with City of Bozeman standards. Incorporated pedestrian facilities would link to existing available features within the surrounding Meadow Creek Subdivision development. ■ Pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity to the sidewalks and trail network adjacent to the SPH West Side Clinic site is to be maintained with the proposed renovation project. No specific improvements are currently proposed with the project. ■ Potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood have been evaluated through the year 2030 as a part of this study, anticipating full buildout, occupancy, and utilization of the development. Projected Traffic Volumes Through Traffic Projections Estimated through traffic (background traffic) projections for the 2030 analysis year utilized a combination of the build-up method, considering background traffic growth due to approved or anticipated to be approved developments in the study area, plus the trends or growth rate method. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 3 Total Traffic Projections Estimated 2030 total traffic volumes include the combination of background traffic volumes with those projected for the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood. Transportation Analyses E�cisting Conditions Operations Capacity and level of service (LOS) analyses were performed for the study area intersections to evaluate existing traffic and non-motorized user conditions based on existing traffic control and intersection geometry. The analyses found that the intersections are currently operating within acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better). Safety A significant crash experience trend was not identified at any of the study area intersections. Projected Traffic Operations No substandard traffic operations or other transportation related impacts were identified through the year 2030 analyses for estimated background or total traffic conditions at any of the study area intersections. Each of the study area intersections is currently operating within acceptable levels of service and are projected to continue to do so with development generated traffic from the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood project. Conclusions & Recommendations Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic operations, and considerations for alternative modes of transportation reveal that the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development will have minimal impact on the area traffic operations. As with any development,there will be an increase in traffic volumes with the buildout of the proposed project. Residents in Meadow Creek Subdivision are likely to note an increase in traffic volumes in the study area that can be managed with existing intersection traffic control in-place along the corridor. Based on the analyses included herein, the following are recommended as appropriate: StudyArea Intersections No substandard traffic operations or other transportation related impacts were identified through the year 2030 analyses for estimated non-site or total traffic conditions at any of the study area intersections. Site Circulation ■ Internal roadways and intersections should be designed for the appropriate vehicles, including emergency and solid waste vehicles as well as buses, as necessary. ■ Adequate sight distance must be preserved at internal intersections and crosswalks for driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety in accordance with City of Bozeman and AASHTO standards. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 4 Alternative Modes of Transportation Pedestrians&Bicyclists The proposed sidewalk and pathway connections within the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development will allow for circulation within the development and provide ties to the existing network within Meadow Creek Subdivision. Transit Service No specific additional improvements for transit service features are proposed within the Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development. Improvements&Traffic Control Guidance Development improvements should be installed in accordance with City of Bozeman requirements, the most current editions of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, Gallatin County transportation standards, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 5 � � � - � � � - � � Proposed Development Plan The proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood to be developed includes 45 residential lots with 22 of those lots potentially accommodating accessory dwelling units (ADUs)for a total of 67 potential dwelling units. The proposed project is to be located on 25.22 acres of a portion of Certificate of Survey No. 2286 (COS 2286) less Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 1 in the west half of the southeast quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East of the Principal Meridian of Montana (W 1/z, SE 1/4, Sec. 23, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.). The project is bounded by South 23rd Avenue to the east, Blackwood Road to the south, existing residential lots and Parkway Avenue to the west, and Enterprise Boulevard to the north. The site location and study area are shown in Figure 1 on the following page. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2 on page 7. Traffic Impact Analysis Horizon Potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood have been evaluated through the year 2030 as a part of this study, anticipating full buildout, occupancy, and utilization of the development. Transportation Elements of the Proposed Development Trip Generation Estimated trip generation for the proposed development was derived utilizing rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The rates used in the analyses were based on the single-family detached housing land use (ITE Land Use Code 210) with a general urban/suburban setting or location and proposed number of dwelling units as the independent variable. Based on the ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 698 average weekday vehicle trips and 52 vehicle trips during the weekday, AM peak hour plus 68 during the weekday, PM peak hour. Pedestrian and/or bicyclist-related trips may comprise a limited number of trips with the proposed development due to its location in relation to activity centers near the study area.The estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development is presented in Table 1 below and is provided in Appendix C. Table 1: Estimated Project Trip Generation I I �� -'- � . I �. ; ;- � �. ; ;- � I ! Total Estimated 210 67 DU 349 349 698 13 39 52 43 25 68 Vehicle Trip Ends DU = Dwelling Units . �� . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��E��G,.��s� � 6 , � , y , z ;�y T, - � •-.lR.'sth�.i� +�ol� l'1"�'.�1 ��.�.r..:�� 't'� , ` ' •jwj��' ''tY � �.�. _� � • ��Y)"� tr '��" ' � I' �` _� � y y'•f�►��►yL• • �. . ` • � �" \� r7V��{ �1 • �, �s-�' � 7.:. r � r�- •�� l€�,�lT�y �i I R •� .�, • - _• •�_ �,1C- .��' 4 �i�a� ��ir� 1 ` :� r ��" ' � + ` �7�,,`��+��'. ��U� _? + '; � � � �: ;• • ,�� +�. R ~f.e 1• � �~�/�� « .� � -�--- ` •�, �� I � , r ,��., 1i . t- y�►- � �z�'- �.*,� ' .x j�.'��, :�� :', � � :,t� .r � � �►•�_ � —� '- �� ; -t`��•:' �'z�:x.: , _�+�� ,° - .�. � ��, � .�. .,;.r�.: -� � .�+ � .�.� 1 ,a,� r , . - �.,_ .�''R`, i '•,>t=ti` T_ ' f r �i" �;; - :- Y��,.r,: � ��;. ;�` ; t'�I; `, ;. �. r�,r y - , � � .i"�':�• - � *.: � _ . , ,. �• y��„ i y �'� ►A s rv��Y �i, �7 ' � �, -` `^ 1�♦ •�rri.� �t'�y1'�� r .,� :e .•�► ' �[ ' -.' �: �b `_ �� l� `� Mrr:t f�/ � . •.r \- '� :. M .♦� 4Nw 1 t�� .��ii �� '� 'j ��i l� � , � �' . _ � �'' a, . � �{�� j � �� .� � � � +w..��T �,�,� y �;�: .� .. .� .1 � .1�•��Ta„5:.7 �� ''��i.r i'•'l .•�`'1 r.. T :7�� _ _�°7� STUDY AREA " f r � �,��' �'�' �, '�� .: ��:�-,. -��,. ;� '� a.,; �; ' ' ` �:��71.'�h'� •',�t - � ' - .. �� r. INTERSECTION ��c �. � _t�-�:- � ,.;. - ��:� �;,:..�:: . ,,.u. , . � . j'f - �'.. - •� ^` ''�'�': �s. � � � (TYPICAL) '. ..`,� '�,;� r�t�,o�.i,. r;� � �_,-��' ' -� �� `f•� � :lr• �� ^ ��,�''� �' � K %w� ��. ' i� � _ _ ___'� G�t+..��t • `-�' • — `. « . H � ..� •� �� N , , ��,f�t .�� >r�-�r. �. * �t ,- tT�' :� '�,';�• •, .�,�t;,i,,,,�,F:~=A�� 'r �`J . .:�^,,�� tt: '•;,t F ;-�. - `N' i' j'-_ {?"` �e�' ' . -a�! ' i1 ,� .��;� e�:� 'y �i '� j : .."�� , •kl{~ �''� � ' ' , - � � R ' t - � `�� M < < _�j�� t�� ._ • : f r 1 � . r 1 �� . . � ' � � ..... __ - _ �..� � . . - ::� �1�,�''�`�''' � ; '� �. �.,� � r3'� - , � .�' .t' � , �y�..,�►-+�r�f�r.`�� ,.. ,��.. � ,�� -.. - �� ' � �1� ,l�Q�y� � t`.� _.'�� yl'��"` �q�,.'� - �� -i ' �t 4 i�� .w r� i�n-r '� E.� I x" ��y" ��'iii�a:r �. '�!''`��!^ '_�,7 - �� ' `p� t�5� . � �`�'�� ,-- •, r .k ti. , :fF�� T- i t •1: - � .. � ti �� ' ,�� u ��y � �� , .� p= _ rv� `� , K• • '_`�'� �� Mnslu�a � .�-' K', � i• �. '°�6�Y�? , ��• i ts,�r�� __�__�__,��,, � �„�,._ ,�., `� r-I -�• `,'"".'�'�"��•f . ��S' �• F ', . � ' r � SUBDIVISION :'Sy,.�`.. , �,�: � LOCATION _ f��;�� .�:: ��` � - �� { �r - �, � �:}`x` .'1'�'r ' �� ;F,Q ,� e � � �fr.� � 'rii �- � � ' t� !� Y.� � f� 1F `�. - ,�-"� �:. ._rjr,,,l �� ' .� �� t -,,,�, �1 r''_ 1 / y� � � ,� \ � � _ �� 7�'�• �' I �` j � -� — ' � � y s` . �� (,' � r � � �J ' � �� ; ,/"i � .'� - • � .*�• •t:- 'l Figure 1: Development Location &Study Area _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 7 t �, s_�'�. - . _� � ` w _ ' ' � ' " 't � ^ • • M'� F� �� f � � , ;�1 '� :. . t , � �� .,'� � � � . � �� ' _ � I• 'l," _ .,.c� �� _ __, _ ,:; `�+�7 i � � '• . � � �� f ;I � . ,� • ,�- ;,• �. ;. .. � � � }, �, .� - -� ! . ,; �� : . ' �r � �-� �• � � 1',j ' «. � �� w ^ 'r r , ,r r�� y - r-"'..�- �� _...�"._�'� � . ' ' . ' . -- ' � i.... :.��_r�-- o - --,o_ _ -- �- �__._.�._��._._ _ �.�.___- -t� . i�j�� .� '�� ''�`�� , - , t t '-� , YJ � • �: � � �, _ . � . !, � � ti ,� .t��'. , � � ,� -:.. �` ; � � .�.�..�'�: l .,� ,., - ; � •� � ; .;. ' 'ti' ti` .'+r1.� i. -- � ; `• ,. t' � -;C �; . � . ,� � � � � � �, `' `'�' � �. � � •�, .. 4 � �, • .�+� ��a�i'A A, , � � � � y ♦ . _ �� •.,� ati� o � T ,� �J�K��3Y / , i " 1 1� 1 � ` � nliOfw'Y'At 1 �. . 7 _ , n�* ,5. 111� � I�, �� V . . . . . __ ." __ � � 1 � � I '7�, 1 '�_ �/, � I'� ' ... ,1 - �� 'SF; i, ' r . ` � '� ` � - -�-- - - �-1'� ..} .�� .7 .• � � .. _ .. _ j i ., �.. _ - - ��.�. -- - �I � � . �. .��i� _ ,� �� :I j �w�w.�. � '��" ._ . _ J � ~I , I � — ' _ � -- . 1 � 't 1� �I � ;.� ` _ � 'iyF i . —� .�� J�'�'t, �'r� � 'r- - a „f• %'.=a �,'�- _"- _ z �� I �-7 � � � 1 � �,� _ ._. F '� �� 4 �' � � ��_ � � � � ' ' �� . 3 � ' � , - i �a �. {� .y, �'.,it;.{�1� . , - �t ��. �� . � �, �.. �il�w� i ��..J� +� ._ A � � . . � _ .� '�,.-` lr._.� .t;. �,L, '� .� ` �' ' � _ •- ' .4s �� ' I � � j r � � �p � ` . 1. � ' �r � I ' �` �a �..� ip� � �' 3 •� Y I- , � . � . . � � � ��. '� �� 6 �� a . � , _ ��:�7�(�"' �, ' f _ ,�._ _ ' ' ,� '' �. ,� `. . ,�� , ' . , � •� � , . . �_:'�r.. ��+—_._ ::o - " , ■ � _ - -- �— . - . --. . _..� �,.:�....� _ �� .%1 1�A..l ) �.� � .. .l ' �1 • � • .• � �-. .--�_� �. ' �- � , ; - STUDY AREA �� -� . �� INTERSECTION ' ' ��:� : i *�-� �' ` - (TYPICAL) _ . - _' _ I- .Y _ ';' . 3 � �,Y —s 7 Figure 2: Proposed Subdivision Layout _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 8 Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable traffic routes that development related traffic will utilize based on likely trip origins and destinations given the characteristics of the proposed development and the surrounding area. Various methods are available for estimating trip distribution, including the analogy, trip distribution model, area of influence, origin-destination (0-D), and surrogate data methods. This study utilizes a combination of the analogy method that bases the trip distribution on existing travel patterns in the area, and the 0-D method that considers likely trip origins and destinations. Figure 3 on the following page shows the estimated primary trip distribution for the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood, which also does account for the future completion of Kurk Drive to Fowler Lane to the west of the development. Traffic Assignment The assignment of development traffic provides the information necessary to determine the level of site related impacts to the area roadway system and intersections. It involves determining the volume of traffic and its movements within the transportation system. At a minimum,trip assignment must also consider route choice, how the existing transportation system functions, and travel times to and from the development. The resulting traffic assignment within the study area is shown in the following figures and on the noted pages: ■ Figure 4: Estimated Subdivision Traffic Assignment - Intersections 1 through 4 Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 10 ■ Figure 5: Estimated Subdivision Traffic Assignment - Intersections 5 through 8 Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 11 ■ Figure 6: Subdivision Traffic Assignment Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT)Volumes - Page 12 Pedestrians& Bicyclists Sidewalk connections are proposed within the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood in accordance with City of Bozeman standards. Incorporated pedestrian facilities would link to existing available features within the surrounding Meadow Creek Subdivision development. Transit Service As transit is not currently available nor is service to the immediate area known to be proposed in the future within the development period of the Meadow Bridge Neighborhood no specific improvements are currently proposed with the project. _ � � � Study Area Land Use Currently,the site of the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood is vacant land located on 25.22 acres of a portion of Certificate of Survey No. 2286 (COS 2286) less Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 1. The project is bounded by South 23rd Avenue to the east, Blackwood Road to the south, existing residential lots and Parkway Avenue to the west, and Enterprise Boulevard to the north.The area offers a mixture of moderate density residential uses and agricultural lands. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 9 �� , 4 - ; �� L�i� � ..i • r" -,�j �,£ ,� i � ,'��, _ `+ � ��„3 �1 .�'r . • •_ .-� - .� . . f � u� � � �,,.. I. �� ri �r ' �"_ +I�i�! t :■ ��l. ♦ �. _ . ••i �� . • - ,1`i' ' ` t.. ��_- . 4�.., ` `�,, �• r+ � �. ., . � � 7°/a � A; _ - 8°�0 ' `..�...►» 49° �,: � o -.;,,, ��'� ��: ° , ��- � ' _�r �,�: ' I: . _� ' —' �' � �F �� . • . �4 ��• r' I i' �� ' ':` t. � �,�� , `��54°k f '+ ' ,� - °� t�_"��' rJ �,,ir��►.-- .,, _. _ , '�� ,� .� � _ 1/0 �,��,_�"�'. _— r ` ` - - _ _ �' ,��'�r6 2�% � i ` � K ��1�� ' ` -`. �� - _ , a �j�i' * � � ��` y r , . �?.l � _ '�� '�• �; ��, r '�X i , . '� � +wk .+� � ; , � . � � . :��,..t �, ,,��., . � . �� ` �. � � F " �•^_ . ' . ` � � �. : .r • � ��' 4 :`,� � � �'t •��+C-. �~ . .'...'.a j�Ji +�lC �; :4 r' ', .`,!'� '� • � a., � S, ''�� 'L � i . .�� .I» " � � I': ��',� � � _ - .�., —_ 2% � � . �� ; _ .y..o.� :. t - ' ��,y�d � 5�; ' � i `. : � _R'-� 1 ^' � _ I � •�� ._ !�` f ,�x � r'�. _ - f .�+7 � �� ' rr � }_ -- �Y � C �„ • _ . - ' .- , � r. •y � , �� . ..��,�. �� , , - - � ``' � 1' T� � � ,� •�f4 r — .•l S ��` � •��, ' 1 _ i�,-,. �. ,' r _ �!._;�.. �� ,r �� ' 1 � .�y � + ;�..� . _ �'�' '� . , , �" �, �,� �� ,) .�� _ . � .�•, �' ' � •��. � `�� ` ".r ��1 ' .�-.��,.�'" _ � � :� , �;; �, �,� �' Q% °,��•;� , _ . ..� - j�� ,�,� � — , �,.�~�"` ;� �.m� , 2% �� , �.�._�.,_�1� -e�•��s - _- � , z � "!J 28% � �`�i � � '�; . r�. �. � ; LEGEND � is�io ,� . "�`�.�. � - ESTIMATED PRIMARY TRIP � � � ,�x; � r.A �' � DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE � � Figure 3: Estimated Primary Trip Distribution _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 10 , r. - i�1 (0) �Z� # -'�• ' : �� .�t-- �� 0 0 ,� ; =• '�. •�'' 'f , � � ' f" � ,,�( __ � � ��0 �0--- _ i-._ � ,0 BLACKWOOD - t ��C 2� �~� � (o) o ,:�' `� � (o) ��; . :�.-- . ROAD& - �v ' . .� � (�) 0 —� SOUTH 27TH ,,,._ 0 �py � � -_ � „-;� AVENUE � . � . 9 � ��t Q, �� . , _ � - e •' � �� :.,-�.i � '- � � �� =� � I � �: �� ,;�. — (�) (4) _ O 7 j� �� O Q_ 0 �`r N,, � ='�� __ � � _ � (o) p �;,r BLACKWOOD � 2 (7) '� ' ` � : ROAD& " PARKWAY � (0) � `' AVENUE `— � (o) 1 � '� � =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS XX= WEEKDAY,AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) (�)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) -- (01 (3) -- (6) (o) (a) `�, 0 4 '� 2 0 0 --- ,'''� � �, --- � � � BLACKWOOD t4� 6 1 SOUTH 19TH '� o (o} (o) o � ROAD& �— � �5) AVENUE& (4� � � SOUTH 23RD � 2 �� i�� BLACKWOOD � � (1� AVENUE �2� q —� ROAD � p (0} � � � 1 0 0 (5) (0) (0) Figure 4: Estimated Subdivision Traffic Assignment—Intersections 1 through 4 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 11 --- (0) (3) (0) -- (17) (4) (0) '�� 0 1 0 '� 5 1 0 --- � +i � -- � i � (0) o � WEST GRAF '`� � (0) (9) 15 � SOUTH 19TH � � (0) (0) p � STREET& ,� 0 (0) t4) 6 � AVENUE& ,� 2 �7� ENTERPRISE WEST GRAF �2� 2 —`�, BOULEVARD ,�r— � (24) {o) p '�+�, STREET �— � �2} � � � � � � 2 3 21 0 4 2 (1) (2) (13} (0} (3) (1) co� �� 2� � � � , '� 0 0 1 = VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ___ �,,+ � � xx= WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS(VPH} (XX)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) (0) 0 �' WEST GRAF '�-- � iT� � - STREET& � c'•� r--'. (0) 1 —�► E— 0 l0) '.�; ,� - '� ' i 7� ; . SOUTH 27TH • .,, ,��•��, �J (�) 0 �, AVENUE ,,t p (p) � � � ; !�_�� s, . '�O'�j�O` - .. _ , _ L+y- �Q � 1 � � � , � �,...� ', 0 1 0 ,r� �; I ,1' i `� " �o) l�) (o) . ��. . '�_� -..� �� - �.-_; -- (ol (�) (�) '�'', � � 0 0 0 _�,Q, .. � - � � 1 �, ,. � . '�� ,: � . - _ , . � : _ � , (�� o � SOUTH 27TH � � (1) �� '� � �'`' i�) 0 —i AVENUE & <-- 1 (�) ' _ ' - �,�,� .� � I . �'r T � (0) p � KURK DR VE .�. 0 (0) �,' ''� ' � 'Q _". -- ' O - � � � � � I , 0 0 0 �` , � (0) (0) (0) Figure 5: Estimated Subdivision Traffic Assignment-Intersections 5 through 8 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 12 � I� '�� • y - �,1 �• � , •�'� w ��i ��' �� w`T� e k f I ,�.•' ,s� � � �, � � ..�., " ,.,.� . — � �� ,r� � A� 4 S !' `�� ,n . -�, . . ��_ .�`•.: r I . .-. - �. E �� .' .. ' 4 �, , ,ti ' � 1'r . _ '�• u F � '� ;� ��:.�i `, , t- r ' � � _ . � y � .... i '1� � . � � 5 ,'i � �'�^r^ S » v - ''F �`�"�� a� � �� -,, �,�-_ ' - ,�.+� '+ • M�,, ,, +M��{r." �,_ , `�" �' . : ,�: �r � - .':F 3 -s r�{c, ?�, � , � ' , �' �.� , �-- y� i . o '' „� '�, '.'_..�,..� Y� a�-- ,�` �`.� • •1.�-,_�5..��OV� _�_�-cr—. _'�..�'� �O,�y_r..� nc'. . .. :i _ _ _ y�� AO H _- ' � _ ' ':+�.�`� �.'�'�`r '. �• ' �, .... � � ,'�I�'. � �� . � �� S � .M � ' �f✓��,�i ,� � '{ � y� � ,�: w�. � .��? ' ''�`��'' . . � � `�� ; i �.'� ' ; ,+ _ ��j` ��'., ' � , � �� i� � y � � � Iti �d�' ' • ` �, " . . �:'.� t�f"r-d; ,, `, � ,;� � .� ,:_% A . . � � �.;i,��E � ;' � �I� � . _. � ,.'�� ' s _ � - � a -� . . � r --i • -� ,Q� i ��. ' ... .,� 1, a. , �, +�� ' �' �� - :� ",r �`,'��' ,� a 1 � ..' 1 ' ��, -- ,r � ' �� `� 1-F '"'� - _�, 1 A . ' , � - � '' — .� 3'I� ' � � ,t � .��T��. ,r , �� e , � S ! _i�` �� -' i { . 1� - 1� •�� . rr'n I `� " ..- �-+�• �' ►'1��' __— '�,i ; J _ -F F•� _ _ . . _ ��'� i�r '� �.� �� . �t�, '� - , � !..� �I , � _�ti• ,� • � � �i.�� '; � i� �: = - . .� �' _ � �� :� �$.� :�� . . - ,�� : ��r _ , �—..��-�O E—_;_ Q —H ��'_� �:.,� _ , �---------,---�_—.-=��—i Q, .� _.� �- - i � _ � - �� r ' ?, . _ �� . � �� ". , • - •�• -��' , , �-; � ,d �r'\ . , ;� � . ,A ; f �,.� , � �';! � i' . � � � �� Q�� ♦ Figure 6: Subdivision Traffic Assignment � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic(EAWT)Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 13 Study Area Intersections The existing intersections evaluated as a part of this study and their current traffic control plus configurations are summarized in Table 2 below and on the following page. Table 2: Study Area Intersections Existing Characteristics ��. � �= = = �. � � . � _ _ •� � EB � South 19th Avenue 1 ' WB � O � 1 & Blackwood Road 2-Way � (EB& WB) N B SB ��,� 0 EB � Blackwood Road 1 ' 2 & WB � South 23rd Avenue 1-Way (SB) S B �y O EB � Blackwood Road 1 ' 3 & WB � Parkway Avenue 1-Way (SB) N B �y O EB � South 27th Avenue 1 ' 4 & WB � Blackwood Road 1-Way SB SB �J � �•�� < �� J EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; and SB=Southbound . �J � . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��E��G,.��s� � 14 Table 2(continued): Study Area Intersections Existing Characteristics ' � ��. � � •� � EB � � �I South 27th Avenue 1 ' WB � O � 5 & Kurk Drive (EB& WB) NB � f � �� O S B �� •,� O � EB � �'�� O ✓ West Graf Street WB � � �' ��% ✓ 6 & 1 ' South 27th Avenue All-Way NB �� "� � � ✓ S B �� <�'�� ✓ u EB � � �� O West Graf Street 1 ' WB � � �� O 7 & Enterprise Boulevard �-WaY NB � O (SB) SB � O EB � �•�� ,� '� > �I �,, � ., �� South 19th Avenue WB � ` � ,,; 8 & West Graf Street NB �� sg �,�,� �--� O ✓ EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; and SB =Southbound _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 15 Alternative Modes of Transportation Pedestrians& Bicyclists There are sidewalks available within the study area on each side of roadways except as noted in Table 3 below. Table 3: Missing Sidewalk Sections in Study Area '�.� -� � �• � South 19th Avenue East side of roadway between Victoria Street and West Graf Street South side of roadway Blackwood Road North side of roadway between South 23rd Avenue and ±125 feet east of Parkway Avenue South 27th Avenue West side of roadway between Kurk Drive and West Graf Street North side of roadway between South 27th Avenue and ±315 feet west of Enterprise Boulevard West Graf Street North side of roadway between South 19th Avenue and ±315 feet to the west South side of roadway between South 19th Avenue and ±275 feet to the west South 23rd Avenue West Side of existing roadway between Blackwood Road and Kurk Drive Designated bicycle lanes are currently included on South 27th Avenue and West Graf Street. They are also present on South 19th Avenue north of West Graf Street. Shoulders on South 19th Avenue south of West Graf Street to Blackwood Road may also function as usable bike lanes. Transit Streamline currently provides transit service to Belgrade, Bozeman, Four Corners, Livingston, and Montana State University. Streamline does not currently have any routes in the vicinity of the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood. This may change in the future with growth in the area, increased transit utilization, changes to routes based on population or activity centers, and maintaining system reliability. Traffic Volumes Count Locations& Data Current vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions within the study area, peak period traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle counts conducted by E5 Engineering, PLLC were utilized for the study area intersections based on averages taken for two weekdays at each location for September 10 and 11, 2024 (Tuesday and Wednesday). The counts were conducted during the morning(7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and evening(4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. The results of the traffic counts showed that the peak hours occurred between 7:45 and 8:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The count data were not adjusted for seasonal or daily variations to account for variations that may occur throughout the year from when the counts were taken. Seasonal and daily adjustment factors available through MDT would result in reductions to observed counts;therefore, no adjustments were made to maintain a level of conservatism to the analyses herein. Summaries of the count data are shown in Figures 7 through 9 on the following pages and are provided in Appendix B. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 16 — (31 (51 �` k=��.-`• � � � ~ `•., �i�' ► �.�5 ��' r :f � 2 2 •� j�` M� . �_ ' -. ; � � �'• __ � '�; � �� h�A�r - ,�' �r _ ;-:� . . �O O �,^, ~ '4 �� • r 4 ��' �2� 4 � BLACKWOOD � 3 �2� , ��' i 7,�� ' ROAD& � � : � � ' I (p) 0 � SOUTH 27TH ,� � ��) , ,� g , � ,r; AVENUE *� � < � �" �! �y 1 , I r�� . . - � t -' � r i �� _ _ �C , � � , T � .�� I� � ; � : �� ; _-- �n` �O� � �: J `� - .�..fi ��. �'�� ,., ,,..r y ' 4 O . O Q _'Q ��N 1 � �Q _ � �� 5� 2 � BLACKWOOD � o (0? '� ` . ROAD& " (p) 0 —„ PARKWAY ,E—, p (0) AVENUE � '� � =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS XX= WEEKDAY,AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS(VPH) (�)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) --- (0) (18) - - (21) (414) (1) `, 0 27 � 7 216 4 - ,! `a --- d +� � (o) p � BLACKWOOD � �o (26) �14� �$ � SOUTH 19TH `� $ �6� ROAD& AVENUE& (0) p � SOUTH 23RD ,,�„ � �p) {�� 2 y BLACKWOOD � � (0� AVENUE �4� 7 —*�y� ROAD �r'— 3 (o) � � � 3 427 6 {6) (286) (3) Figure 7: 2024 Existing Traffic Volumes-Intersections 1 through 4 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 17 (12) (19) (28) - -- (67) (439) (135) � 10 10 24 '� 41 195 185 -- -:�� ,� l � --- .� � '� (5) 10 �' WEST GRAF '"� 30 (20) (64) 84 �' SOUTH 19TH R- 235 (102) (35) 87 —.,.- STREET& ,� 30 �79� (44) g3 .�, AVENUE& �. 46 (81) ENTERPRISE WEST GRAF �� 3 -�,, BOULEVARD ,�- 12 (20y (12) �4 "`�, STREET ,�+"-' 34 (48) � � � � � � 6 13 30 13 413 81 (2) (10) (12) (16) (303) (27) �4� �26� �7� � � � , `� 4 10 12 =VENICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ___ �,� 1 � xx= WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH} (XX)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) �>> � � WEST GRAF '� 15 ��2) STREET& � � ' � �. � �5� 23 � SOUTH 27TH `� 6 113) '#.; � ' . �� . •�� r �2� o -�,, AVENUE ,r� �s (a�y � '' � ' -- � f. r[ ;.► �' " - M*+�rO�:::.....1�0��. .. '�, O I 1 f s ' ,� ; �' ' � ` ., �� .=. : `, �, 0 18 42 � � �� :;;' ��) (18) (19I -'� � . , � '� � - .� � � , ---- {37) (17) (9) � ' , ` 17 8 5 � .�, � - � �,� �. �y,,� i , - � 1' � 'r - r! � � F '�� - � r • ,� I � Y (18) 33 � `t�._.. 6 (31 �"i . ' « - SOUTH 27TH ��i' � � '` - '' '�' . t � � - . � AVENUE & � �3) 1 � 4-- 0 ��) , * :_ �i( �k��,_.�. - KURK DRIVE •O Q Q ��-a�,, ,Q (11 0 �t � 1 (3} � � � ;:i r 1 , i 'r i�. 0 17 0 . � (0} (12) (1) Figure 8: 2024 Existing Traffic Volumes-Intersections 5 through 8 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . �J � . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��E��G,.��s� � 18 .; �- , . _ ,7f; ; - .» � ;�j . � . ,�� • Y .p�� 1 �I r ni 1 ,� p�t� � �� . +� , . � y'"I j .1' � ' + �_ _ _.'.,.,1 ' ., � � � '�-��L'�'r -.�_ . . .� i ::� • � fe� �d. . ^ � � � . , s.n�.. •r i`.,r -r . . - i r_� 1 M � � ^ 1 � � , � '�� . �• � �-%� • ' \u � • ^ _ �i ,`� _ _ � •� , . { - I � � �.... . �� ! .1 . �• � �� t !�'� ,lw ��w �• � - f ��''�+�;� `_'� � ,I` �' ', s��_ � �t� 1�. �� . -*� • � _.�..i/f '��S ':., � � _t r. � � `_ � `� �� : . � � , ,'• '�' " • +� �� a` , ,+ ' _ � �'� �' ' ' ^ � — " - �- .._ •;,r.�-�_ I ,n _.� �-� '.ee"'. . . �._' �a,. E��I\�-, . � o .w►_'Q r; � C�� _ .�O •`.�r;' �. -, s � Y- �;�� • � - !�. , .f.-�7 '., ' `. t f � t `}.l��• '� , � `�.r ^ �'' - � _ �� •��•.. � •`� � � �� { 1 ;:i N`'y'.� i •� ' �� ` ;.. ,; � ' • j _ ��' � 1��1 rh �+ � _�.s ,1, —� ��'� . � ��.a��k � � r�, �I� _ ,+;�,;y � �y ' I � ' �. ,�t �. • -- •. ---� i ; •t---•�.' - - ; � � .'i � ,�_ _ � i - . �.�. , � �. �; f I f . � '�� :� ' � r. M ? � i � v � . r . 0 rr. r. ' - , � , �• _ � i .i'. = 1 ^ '! .� � � � i� r � ' � � ��'�1t,` j ► _�, ,� i u � , � ��' � ,I � �. ,� , • _ � : 4•� � :, L , ,� � � 7�, �• ��; i� ' r �_ U 'f _ i+�l- �`� �/� !� 1�'` �T r �Q ',�. :' �� .,�• J�� 'R '� eL1:, f1:-�•� � �� . j �� p r�i �k.f�:' �y�� . .'A' � � �. �p� _ �� ' �� "r �' �� t .9•� '•�r`�� 1--�r ,' �� -� � rk--s*-. -3► F ,.� �r'.�P.,,,� ` �..�.y,. o _ Q ,E---1`�y Q� ---_—��_ E„�-�� - , .�- � . -�..��Q � . . �� k� �� - � , - . ; - t } `� , .. ��_�� :I, � � . - { � ."f: . . i� .� .. , � � d t v�' �•r -r �� ^ � , � � �• :n � -'� � ��. , ��i. ' , . 'rt� � ,� 1: � Figure 9: 2024 Existing Traffic Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic(EAWT) _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 19 Safety Traffic safety conditions were documented by reviewing the crash history of the study area intersections using data provided from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) crash database. Public crash information for the period 2019 through 2023, the most recent five years available, was reviewed. MDT reported one (1) crash within the study area over the five-year period at the intersection of West Graf Street and South 27th Avenue in 2021. Limited data is available through the public crash information provided by MDT. Additional crash information such as type; weather, roadway, and lighting conditions; number of vehicles, pedestrian, or bicyclist involvement; age and gender of drivers; and other potentially contributing conditions can be obtained through a review of the specific crash reports. � - � Through Traffic Projections An estimate of non-site related traffic growth in the study area through the year 2030 is necessary to reflect potential impacts more accurately from the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood. Three primary means are typically used to estimate growth of non-site generated traffic (background traffic growth), including the build-up method, the trends or growth rate method, and the use of transportation plans or models.This study utilized a combination of the build-up method and the trends or growth rate method. The build-up method considers background traffic growth due to approved or anticipated to be approved developments in the study area. The trends or growth rate method involves evaluating the historic traffic growth rates within a study area, assuming that those trends will remain approximately the same and continue in the future. Background Development Other known developments in the study area that are in various stages of development or review processes that may be completed within the evaluated 2030 analysis period of this study include the following: ■ Nexus Point& Graf Apartments Data Source: Traffic Impact Study Report for Nexus Point&Graf Street Apartments prepared by Marvin &Associates(December 3, 2019). ■ South Range Crossing(SRX) Data Source:South Range Crossing Subdivision Traffic Impact Study prepared by Sanderson Stewart(February 2023). ■ Jarrett Subdivision Data Source:Jarrett Subdivision Traffic Impact Study prepared by Sanderson Stewart(March 2023). ■ Blackwood Groves Data Source: Blackwood Groves Tratfic Impact Study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services(January 2021)and the Blackwood Groves TIS Addendum (March 23, 2021)with intersection turning movement projections sourced from the Jarrett Subdivision Traffic Impact Study prepared by Sanderson Stewart. ■ Buffalo Run Data Source: Traffic Impact Study Update - Buffalo Run prepared by E5 Engineering, PLLC(January 2022). Traffic growth within the study area due to known developments in the area is represented through available data from the above noted traffic impact studies. Traffic from other background developments is anticipated to be included in the traffic growth projections for future analysis years. . �J � . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��E��G,.��s� � 20 Growth Rate Projections Average annual growth rates (AAGRs)for through traffic on South 19th Avenue were projected for the 2030 analysis year by reviewing historical trends from annual average daily traffic (AADT)volumes available through the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). Five-year AAGR values were developed from the MDT data. Additionally, assumed AAGR values were utilized for portions of West Graf Street and South 27th Avenue in anticipation of continued development where data was not available through previously completed traffic impact studies or transportation plans. The AAGRs utilized as a part of this study are summarized Table 5 below. Table 4: Estimated Average Annual Growth Rates '�.� •� '�.� •� " ' South 19th Avenue Blackwood Road to 2.30% West Graf Street West Graf Street West of South 27th Avenue 5.00% Assumed Value forAnalysis Purposes South 27th Avenue North of West Graf Street 5.00% Assumed l/alue forAnalysis Purposes Projected Through Traffic Volumes With the completion of Blackwood Road between Parkway Avenue and South 23rd Avenue included with the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood project; it is anticipated that there will be some limited redistribution of existing traffic on the local street network. This is reflected in the estimated 2030 through traffic volumes (background traffic). The estimated through traffic growth between 2024 and 2030 from the build-up and growth rate projections are shown in the following figures and on the noted pages: ■ Figure 10: Estimated 2024 - 2030 Traffic Growth & Redistribution Intersections 1 through 4 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 21 ■ Figure 11: Estimated 2024 - 2030 Traffic Growth & Redistribution Intersections 5 through 8 � Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 22 ■ Figure 12: Estimated 2024 - 2030 Traffic Growth & Redistribution Volumes Estimated Average Weekday Traffic (EAWT) - Page 23 The estimated 2030 through traffic volumes (background volumes)from the build-up and growth rate projections are shown in the followingfigures and on the noted pages: ■ Figure 13: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic - Intersections 1 through 4 Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 24 ■ Figure 14: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic - Intersections 5 through 8 Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 25 ■ Figure 15: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic - Page 26 _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 21 -- (-2) (0) .�.� . r r'.". �:t�•r ; 1 '�� . � ,; ! .__ �',�i •r -� � •<. � , M• : �__� ' : �"' r� ; . ---- ,� ��, �� ,.:._,-�� = _. ,��'' 0 =0� ��- '0 BLACKWOOD � �. � �J�,::�' ; ' (-�) -2 �` '"P+�. 3 ��) .��' • +'� �,. ,, , ROAD & � • �' � . � , ' i, (�) 2 —� SOUTH 27TH ,� � �2� , � '� , �.�, AVENUE � � I y r `�' � . `� • ��.:� '• � ,_c ` K � � �, � �: ,' �� ` �� JJ .I y ` ,�I 1� � 1 �' � i � � �) ��) - `'�!'��A'L� �. �'��. -2 � O '� � :�7''`N'j, n�r y l �Q'� �.�' � -- � Y �� i , (-3? -1 �' B ROAD &OD �`'�--- 0 (0) � • �4� 3 � PARKWAY � 3 (3� AVENUE � '� � =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS XX= WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) (�)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS(VPH) -- (0) (0) -- (3) (61) (35) `'i, 0 0 'i 3 32 23 �l ( I � � `� -- � i � BLACKWOOD t4� 3 —� SOUTH 19TH '� 26 (39) (0) 0 � ROAD & �— � �� AVENUE& � a (0) �4� 3 _., SOUTH 23RD � 3 �3� �� BLACKWOOD AVENUE �p� p --� ROAD ,�— 7 �g� � � � 0 62 9 (0) (42) (10) Figure 10: Estimated 2024—2030 Traffic Growth& Redistribution Intersections 1 through 4 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 22 -- ��) t�) l0) — �15) ��) �37) `'.;, 0 0 0 `�i 8 31 19 --- � +F � -- � i � (0) 0 �!' WEST GRAF '�-� � (0) (10) 19 �.P" SOUTH 19TH '� 15 �») (6) 18 --� STREET& ,�-,- 10 (13) f27) 29 ----> AVENUE & ,,� 21 (29) ENTERPRISE WEST GRAF to) p --�y BOULEVARD ,�-- p �p) �7� 6 -�, STREET ,�-� 13 (16) � � � � � � 0 0 0 7 63 11 (0) (0) (0} (8) (48) (4) - - ��) �3) (�) I � I , �� 4 = VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS �,+. � � XX= WEEKDAY,AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS(VPH) (xx)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) t�) � �"` WEST GRAF "� 5 (4) . �r t2� 8 � SOUTH 2 7TH � 2 (4) �� ` � �� .�'�t . ' �� lw, �l � ' 'I AVENUE t►. � : �- � �-�-�. T �. . (0) 0 �"�t ,� 1 (4) ,h�+�� _ .. ,� - J. �� -:�_ s:;_ i .0 O • � � � r � tr �` � � .. , 0 3 6 �1 - .,:~ ' ;; (0} (3) (2} � —" � � �r•;.. �1. � � , " - �9� �2) (�) �, . . � 3 -1 0 ��-- � ' � •r-+ � ' �b'" � � � � � � '' � � - - '�" _ ,�' ` � t6) 1� _.r'' `� � (0) i� - �,_ � �� - , SOUTH 27TH , � ; �� ,�• (0) 1 —► AVENUE & �-- 0 (�) KURK DRIVE � � � � �� , .o o � ��'�T�o �� o �. ,� o �o> . _o� � � � . o _2 0 ,. � (0) (-1) (1) , Figure 11: Estimated 2024—2030 Traffic Growth& Redistribution Intersections 5 through 8 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 23 ,�. . _ .� � - ,t •�i ' . � .� ,j�,� t,,� �: a � - •� � . . 4- ' 'i " ' �,� � . 'I �` .� �� t� ^ r �� y' � � .� �4�;�,_ .+ ;� i'r �� .�l ` . : �, � � �+« � ��. . .�.. � �., :...�- /r .r �. •`� f � r �..�-�� . ..� �h n ` , , ` ,,. S �_, .� . .� ) - _ _ . '� '� ,�, �� i ' � �` � �� ' � "��" _ c.-�.`. � i'.�,� - ,�: ' ��_ ,, � '4r.a �� y1, j x � �l..h ' �� ,� ��1'+ t .��{ � . t. �� . vt ` {I �� r.� {� � �+. . � �� . � . ��, ,�� .�. �� , ��. .. , � � R _ a , . _� ..,., _ �.--� '�.. _ . '�. _.. ,� " . ,----�----.; .- :� � , ~�_ -�---�-�,,,'�� _ T_ �_ . . . ='_-.;`�. - O -�� a��--— - -�.1�. .`��` .� �. . . �_..� - � �{S•. ' _ .�- �+ - � ��r � .� � �. ,� r r .. :, �, _ _•4�s�' ,�,� : � ; .�..+ .r, . ,:�• � R„�. �� .r , .; ��'� . � �. �,,, '��' ' � • � ,t .` ' s• -� , , ,.� '��*� � '�?. �'�'s �� =, ` � ' 't�'�� {� ��,,�; ', � ,� A r . . _ �. �"'=',�i� 1� , � ,0 ,-�� ►+ " , `�;- `•� ' a'��i � � � , '�` ' . -. .. , 1' I .T �__—'I ...� '�.Q � ��'_, f �... ,. .1 .`,', .� � ��;. .1 t�" .� � , �. �1� r.� � � �'� � ♦.•_ , . _ 'f'v .' .. � i ^ ',. . � rr ). �Y � ;. j� � � �� I . , .' '_�.. s'�i' �' ..�' ..'1 -'� � _ - ��1, �� ,� � �K`� A� � �'� � �r . . �I t� _ . , _fi' �s.�.i' ;� _ � .� •�" � � ' i _� , � ��` lt��c � i '� � .. g• el, '.�� ,j �'''�, � � �.��' �'• — � 1,� '}. ..-�r -�..�j��t . ,��` - �t'. , . '.Ji` I J �v . .� ��- �. !r � ��.r r ! � i `'' �' � .� � ` �4� � , �!� ��,�� . � �� ,�.� �� ,� . , _ �`�'�,.,�--�' O -3s � E----.;. _` � .,�....�.., a� �Q��--- ---=�—�.�Q �—; ,- � � �: , , �. �. x � � .�. . -__- I J `�� k Y �� ; � . � ,, J, . ' � . ,�'' ` �c � .�n �d y�. � � , ``� = � �i ; � •a � ; , . , _ � �, t� . , � �, �� , ^,,�.-= _ 1 H� �' , � � � �. Figure 12: Estimated 2024-2030 Traffic Growth &Redistribution Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic(EAWT) _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 24 (1) f5) !�r �. � � _ ' r""'- .� �� . � 1 2 � � ~s •�!. •, , �, � ; . f''" �; ,Y � � -- ,� �, �� - -� _ _ :�.; _ _ YO I O�� ;� � �v � ; t. BLACKWOOD � ' .�� - r.'.�~' � (�) 2 �' ROAD & '�`--- 3 (2? � , =.-. ` � �' ' ! � � ,�. ��) 2 —�► SOUTH 27TH � 2 (2) " � :; , � �r t AVENUE � �' � " �; � �'� � � F -- •�,� �� ✓ �~ J R •: � l �� + i � � I � Y � { � � � � , � +� � � ; ��a a; — f�) f°) - .,.,,� -.� �r� >�+,�'�� 2 o O Q � ��'"'.. ".T � `, ..� �1 O --- ,� � (2) � � BLACKWOOD ,� o �p� ,.� . � ,, ROAD & �4� 3 _,, PARKWAY �.._ 3 (3) AVENUE � '� � =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS XX= WEEKDAY,AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) (XX)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) — (0) (18) —- (24) (475} (36} `�� 0 27 , � 10 248 27 -- 1 � --- � +� � BLACKWOOD (18� Z� � SOUTH 19TH '� 34 (45) (0) o � ROAD & �'�— �� 26� AVENUE& �4) 3 �„ SOUTH 23RD � 3 �3� (�� 2 y BLACKWOOD � � �o) AVENUE (4� � —� ROAD � 10 (9) � � � 3 489 15 (6) (328) (13) Figure 13: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic-Intersections 1 through 4 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 25 (12) (19) (28) - -- (82) (493) (172) � 10 10 24 '� 49 226 204 -- -:�� ,� l � --- .� � '� (5) 10 _J' WEST GRAF ''� 30 (20) (7a) ;03 �l' SOUTH 19TH '� 250 (119) (41) 105 --�• STREET& .� 40 (92) (71) �12 —.., AVENUE& �. 67 (110) ENTERPRISE WEST GRAF �� 3 -�,, BOULEVARD ,�- 12 (20y (19) 2p �'�, STREET ,�-� q� �64) � � � � � � 6 13 30 20 476 92 (2) (10) (12) (24) (351) (31) �5) (29) `9} � � � , `� 5 1� �6 =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ___ � � � xx= WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) iXX?= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) �>> � � WEST GRAF '� 20 (16) STREET& �] � ' � #r .q� �. � (7) 31 -�i f� 8 (17) ��L; .. , f F7■ -' r SOUTH 27TH � ' •� j ;.",s � , �� r �2� o -�,, AVENUE ,r� 20 (45) � � ' -- � r r� ;r �� - M�*+�O�O��. .. '�, O � � � s ' ,� � '�: . - � 1 ., �� .�. ,- . ,� 0 21 48 � � �� :;" (�) (21) (21I —'� � . , � '� � - .� � � , --- (46) (15) (9) �f + ` 20 7 5 � .�, � - � �,� �. �y,,� i , - - ►� ,� �,, r - r! , A F •,�� - - r ,� I � Y (24) 44 � `�.. 6 �3) i . �-_ � « - ' SOUTH 27TH ��' �. � �` '' '�� t ; � (3) 2 � AVENUE & �-- 0 (2) ' � � , * �- �� k��x� - KURK DRIVE •O Q Q ��-a�,, ,Q (11 0 �t � 1 (3} � � � ;:i r 1 , i 'r i�. 0 15 0 . � (0) (11) (1) Figure 14: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic—Intersections 5 through 8 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 26 ,- ��y- � • - ;�,. �.�, � r. �rr � . � t , ..� 6✓" t- !'' �p�, .; - " , �' i � �` J' rT, 'l ' t ��, S V� ' _ 7� .1��.:+ � i � � a;1'; , _�_ _�..::.� • i �IJ, " � �y, r,{• N �'„� � .., .� �` . . � � ' `y+ ., ' I 1�.�.. �'`, !� � . �� r-- �~ '�t� � � ,-'� - — °.,i 1 }�'. . . . ,�� '•• f' � •� �,�. j �. �' iy � f R � ' r'� �+ — I �� - r .I �� ` � ,' r � � ', (,� �'��' a�:`��;� � i, � ' .�_ ' _ �, . � ', �� _ � . J ..� �� . ;, �= ;,�; � I,��1 �';� '�4" -,. ��rt, ' ' �� jiN�t,y- �r �, ;� .t` f ,. - � . y � ...� '`« .- . — . ''` � - �. .��_"r'_;7 � r�� . A�.:. . �r.. :''"� ��""l,�.��!�t'.....O'L '-- ...�.��.O x r; t . ... : . . _ -�� I O =E=��.�r- - f� �k ,��I � � ,� �� : � �� _ ,� ��}•�' , � �+ � ', 4 , .t,`-�'.i � �v, ,i 1 ,r � � ,�,� ' •« � i ` .w �'• � T�' l3:� �p�• '�' �5� `.`� ', ' • . •,,,y,.� , r :+` y. 6� � � � ��r � . , ;�. • � .n..�.,� � ��4 � - •�. .n� -.i, q{� i ;�� .� _ '`��i� • '�: �:,� �r - - 'i'��'i ..� � � !r I� C J� �� I . . ., . ! ,, , r � ~ �� Q �—��• 1 � � r. � t 'y ,��r� �f , `:� ,•i�� ,y , , � �� i i-� ��j ��, " "__ TM , F. _f..�.�� _�.�. __. . � j . - - -=. � � - , .� ,n` . � � , 1 �. , �, �,�, •� v '� � � �1 � i �i 'x �, - _ ' i . I ` r ' ' �� " --J+ r � ' '� �r_ -_ 'a - - � �— ..�, �, Y' •`, '�"" �, t *� � - �:.�,�: . ��,� � � �;� '� - I� � R �1 r �. ��. � � TK�u�� -- �F � r• �� - . ' u ' • � ; � '�.T �'• 1 i:.� � , r�,, � � �.�;. � , ��.� � _ �� . , �i�'1�1'`!�1#"�' '��. ..: o � o -�.-�o,� ��o H __ a- , � � i �� 6 . . , � •� 3 — {� r d�� ..J R►. .�. � y ��" J /\ 3'� + ,_ $'r i r� , � � . , , � ' ` �, � � � a 1 �` � E—; �4� # � �, i Figure 15: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic(EAWT) _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 27 Total Traffic Projections Estimated 2030 total traffic volumes include the combination of background traffic volumes with those projected for the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood, which are shown in are shown in the following figures: ■ Figure 16: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic - Intersections 1 through 4 Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 28 ■ Figure 17: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic - Intersections 5 through 8 Weekday, AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Page 29 ■ Figure 18: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic - Page 30 � � � Analysis Scenarios To identify significant project impacts, the following scenarios for study area intersections were evaluated: • Existing Conditions (2024) Consists of an operational analysis of September 2024 counts collected as part of this study. • No Build Scenario - Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes Consists of projected, non-site background traffic volumes resulting from build-up and applied AAGR values. ■ Full Buildout Scenario - Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes Consists of estimated 2030 background traffic volumes in combination with forecast traffic from the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood. Analysis Methodologies Operations The intersection analyses employ methodologies based on empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other authorities, utilizing level of service (LOS) as the performance measure to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as travel speed,traffic volumes, roadway and intersection capacity,travel delay, and traffic interruptions. Operating conditions are designated as LOS A through LOS F, representing the most to least favorable. LOS for intersections is determined by control delay, which is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from the free flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. LOS characteristics based on varying durations of average vehicle delay as listed in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition � A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the TRB are summarized in Appendix A. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 28 (�) t5) � . I _ r— � _� �: �� . ;` •, � � 2 � � .. •� M' �_! ._ . � �� ^1� .• � _ � � '�'SIIA��' .� - - :•._ r ,�O O�� Q BLACKWOOD � � ��-�,� �� '� ��) 2 � "�. 3 (2? �� a. �� ROAD & � � • �� -.�. ' '. � I SOUTH 27TH � (�) 2 � AVENUE `— 2 (Z) . T .. ,,.t � -' � ry ,rt ^ �' �' � �� + i'. � , ^{ �� _ � � ^ � � �I . � � � �- �: T . � ; �� ,;. -- c'� c4� - ,..,R -�� . `�' Z l7 O Q � ��''�'i" /,T jO � --- � `a �2� � � BLACKWOOD � 2 �7) .� . � , ROAD & �4� 3 ,_, PARKWAY ,� 3 (3) AVENUE � '� � =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS XX= WEEKDAY,AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) (xx)= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) - (0) (21) -- (30) (475} (36} `�� 0 31 � `� 12 248 27 - � `� - � # � BLACKWOOD (22� 27 -�" SOUTH 19TH `�- 34 t45) (0) 0 � ROAD & �- �� 31� AVENUE& (8) �p _, SOUTH 23RD �. 5 (10) �� 3 � BLACKWOOD � � �1} AVENUE (g� �� -*�, ROAD ;�- �p �g} � � � 4 489 15 (11) (328) (13) Figure 16: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic-Intersections 1 through 4 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 29 (12) (22) (28) - -- (99) (497) (172) � 10 11 24 '� 54 227 204 -- -:�� l � --- .� � '� (5) 10 _J' WEST GRAF ''� 30 (20) (83) 118 �l' SOUTH 19TH '� 250 (119) (41) 105 --�• STREET& .� 40 (92) (75) ��g _.., AVENUE& � 69 (��7y ENTERPRISE WEST GRAF �3� 5 —�,, BOULEVARD ,�-- �g �44� (�g) 20 �—�, STREET �— qg (66) � � � � � � 8 16 51 20 480 94 (3) (12) (25) (24) (354) (32) �5) `30) `11, � � � , `� 5 1� 17 =VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ___ � � � xx= WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) iXX?= WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS (VPH) �>> � � WEST GRAF � 22 �17� STREET& �] � ' � #r .q� �. � (7) 32 -�i f� 8 (17) ��L; .. , f F7■ -' r SOUTH 27TH � ' •� j ;.",s � , �� r �2� o —�,, AVENUE ,r� 20 (45) � � ' -- � r r� ;r �� - M�*+�O�O��. .. '�, O � I � �- , . r :1 , ,�� . � '` . � 0 22 48 . � � , -'=,;-, , (�) f221 (21) -'� � , � :_ � �r , - .� � � , ---_ (46) (15) (10) � `�� 20 7 5 �-��.�. � - , � - ►� � �, _ r ., � : �F •�� r � � I � : (24) 44 � �.. 7 (4) i . �� ' « - � SOUTH 27TH ��' �. � '` '' '�' � . � (4) 2 � AVENUE & <-- 1 (3) � - . ��x� - KURK DRIVE . . �O Q Q ��'a�,, �,� (11 0 �t � 1 (3} . Q � � � i.i r 1 , i 'r i�. 0 15 0 . � (0) (11) (1) Figure 17: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic-Intersections 5 through 8 �Weekday, AM &PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 30 I� �� ' � � ��, �, rri 1 •�� ; ��• ..�� `T� e ti � . I � . y• �1�� - _ 1 : — • � ' �.{- �7'1 • ."'q/ ` P.._.. �� . � �.+- �r r/'E , , � S `� r M '� r .n-• r . . - �. �_4 ��-- • . .'�� .� .0 1� ,�'1 �� , .. `I'� 1•� � �i� .� _ . ii �- ' +/ I 1'S �� , � , � ►t .� �vi.�w '- �• � v ' _ �� —f i f; �� ,� t�� . � � !� �� 1 •�� + . R� . 1. � �, � _ � . � ,�, . . ,,:� E , � ;rr� . -�� :. .,�{� � � � � � � ► � `�: ' �; � ' ��-`�-a}�'O',s �.�--=�►_ �Qp��... ,.,,. : l ��_� O E--� s�� _ , '-_ � .'��r -' �. • ,; - .� , ,,: t ;� �;$,,, ..� ,� r y� � 4 ,. • ' .�� w , �r � . q .? �' ., ~� j ` ��` { ' �� ,+ �; ,��,_ � , • • � � � --..�.�. �;;!� �� , r:: .i ,� - f +. � . .� ;+� �� 1• : �n (!7• #w' � . . �, .� . . j�'��. � .��,�! ,I� � � � �- .`� � . —• � � -'y �-�+ r,,� _ -, . . � -- � �-'� �--a: .. ..� � � �• -' �� - -- � � t• �, � � ,~, � :� � _� F.; �� ,- �� ' ��. � �i', - �..� i � ; - - , 1 ' , ^, � y� _r, , �� . �. , i ]Si f t� - � 1 J ` � , � � i' � _ y'�I • T� I; i {. ` � -� . ; � � I�� ,�,: �-d��L• , �,�� -y' il�{ � ,+ , �` _ ��r ,�• _ _ ��.- '� � �_ � y - � =r t • ;� ` _ �- �,�,r i �', �- � � '�� ,� !I' f1- . . ' x � �b:� 4:�I y _ �� :�.}� ` •� _ ,,��—�. -, .�—� �� 1#��_� �:.��►,., � �F,o _ o �o ��o _ _ , � � � :. . - .»�x, , ' �. � �� . , _ � �� -�' . � ... ' -� a , , , -�.�-� . ,� ; � Y� • � � :, .- �,.. '' ) , �'i k� L � 1 + � � � E_� �' � � Figure 18: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes � Estimated Average Weekday Traffic(EAWT) _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 31 Unsignalized Intersections The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on Chapter 20 of the HCM for two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections and Chapter 21 for all-way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections. The LOS criteria are applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections.The TWSC analyses were performed using HCS TWSC Version 8.4 developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. The AWSC analyses were performed using HCS AWSC Version 8.4 also developed and maintained by the McTrans Center. The HCM methodology for evaluating TWSC intersections is based on gap acceptance and conflicting traffic for vehicles stopped on minor street approaches.The critical gap (or minimum acceptable gap) is defined as the minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows entry for one minor street vehicle.Average control delay and LOS for the minor street approach(es) is/are reported. LOS is not defined by the HCM for the intersection because major street traffic volumes and operations may skew the results of the LOS analyses. The HCM methodology for evaluating AWSC intersections is based on the presence of traffic on each of the approaches or in the intersection,the presence of pedestrians and/or bicyclists, and the driver's determination that it is their turn to proceed. Drivers may give the right-of-way to other drivers based on the arrival patterns at the stop line or to a driver on the right (right-of-way rule where it is recognized). In the case of AWSC intersections, LOS is defined by the HCM for the intersection as a whole. Signalized Intersections Signalized intersection operations were evaluated using both Synchro plus SimTraffic(Version 12.0, Build 1, Revision 0 - 12.0.1.0)developed and maintained by Cubic ITS, Inc. as well as TEAPAC Complete (Version 9.50 - 26JAN19 Build 02)developed and maintained by Strong Concepts that utilizes methodologies provided in Chapter 19 of the HCM. The HCM methodology for evaluating signalized intersections assigns a corresponding letter grade based on average control delays for each lane group at the intersection as well as overall intersection traffic operations.The overall condition of the intersection is determined by taking a volume-weighted average of all the delays for all vehicles entering the intersection. Study Scenario Analyses Intersection capacity and LOS analyses for the study scenarios were performed using the existing geometry and traffic control at each of the study area intersections. The analyses are summarized in the following figures and detailed results are included in Appendix E. ■ Figure 19: Traffic Operations Summary for 2024 Existing Conditions - Page 32 ■ Figure 20: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Background Traffic - Page 33 ■ Figure 21: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Total Traffic - Page 34 . �J � . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��E��G,.��s� � 32 � ,� ,, -Y-� �,,� � • rr �' � � . _ . : �.i�Ml�!!!!!�I'1�!!� �' ""�"�a.._ `��7 - �'��.f ,. , �� - -'r� -j >"r .._ . ---- � . �C' e:" - ` _ f • Y�` • _, �. , :� r _ � . , � , � � �*-�� : .. . � � _ -f'tA� ��'`,� ' �� - < '� :� r•',.,f,�' .�,. � , '. ,i�� .�. �, l �d ' � � � , '. << . _ _ ' •,.� �� ,�—; ,�,�. ,� , � �� , �� ,� -� ' � - �, � ' 7 4 �t� 4..� ,I " � � .`' ^�.,� : i, i �.� f'. 7` . . .� I � �� + _L�t � �� ~� - ' � ' � �•- . � ! i C � , �,� ��r��7� � r ��.. �' • .. �`- ♦. ��• .�'� - y}r I tr• , � ` ;� d' � � �� , - . ,. _a I�, -1-� � � ti � ,� - r � ! � "�''"'. r 4 "�' + � 'f � � T' ♦ , � � , �� _ �'_ ��- ,,�•� , ; , <�.�3�r ��.t��,� ��,� � ,� .,R ,� � c ' �'►,��?�t, r � r� � • , .� -- — — -- — t� � � ? � � a � - " itl ;� • r . , �r �t - , � �r � a �. � .._�Ml�l�!!!!!!I !��*!M�, _� r �t - - . , �_ - C C�- � � _ - _ � . 1 � �h ,< � •,yp '" � '''S ;� ' ' , , , �l.y �i� ".f,.� ., � r r + •`.':`' �.' f ' .!. ' .i . . � �� ` ! �w , , f � � 1 • ' ,' �� ; •t , ► �a —�'... �i�l � �r h •+ � �; �, � � - '�� ' 1;' 1� .* ��. r .r ,�� ,, , ! . . � '� t1,'� '• �� ' �� ". ;1� ' fr? _ �► � �. 1 i� ;� ' ' f. � ��,� , !,E �� , r:+� � �� f ' �� M �� . � 1 , . , � '� � � �-�� Y1, _ � .. . • � y �� 4�' ' � ' 1 .� , � � � • - � ��4 -♦ �' �, `� -�y. }• , ' LEGEND ; � . .,. � tiE ' ' �-/ e. � �.� O " � .� � '}• � ''► APPROACH �;� . � �� ' ' � ~ ` c +a � PEAK HOUR _� r� ,��' �� , � LEVELOFSERVICE '� } ! ��:�� ' ,� � ' , ' �, *'�' ,� , � INTERSECTION �. . 3 �► r � .��.l� � - -Jlr'�a�:_ �' _ C -- PEAK HOUR � . ` -�� ' �- : O LEVEL OF SERVICE , � 1 ' (ASAPPLICABLFJ Figure 19: Traffic Operations Summary for 2024 Existing Conditions _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 33 ' � '� ��'� - ' �rr -�y► � `� � i �+�,�� u�..�� , , , t '� -- -- -- � -�"j'^ �=',.- - � � �� - - ; I :_ - • -- - C .�C C �' �',�•'- � , ,�' ; t- � �'. • C — ' . _ . �� ; �`:-. � �' � . . � �, ,i�. �` �". •� �»,.' r � � .�� ,�� , � i ; � � ; � �( a ' _ __ ,�^, 71 •:e�� (Ii"' � i�;i. ,�• . i`7 a T �'^i �e � � ,�, � . ;�� •� l� :r�,�, �'f� � � ��4 � � t-�. r�. , T�. . . ; . ,:` � �. � ' - ~ s .• � �.1 . � �{ _ « •J ��+ -. t � , � . � - - ' _. i ` "�� '�� ' ` K , � '� ' ,. . a , Y -- '�-- as�+- ,y � � ' .� / --,.. ,� _ . �, � ,•�} {� .� i • y� � �. 1} �,.� 1 � - •�� +�} ..t�-- _ : , '� t E��t �r '� _-�' , �0► �. i�.{� �l Z �.h�a��1�'�`� * y/'ti • s . '�- �..1 � '�_LI ' �C —- - _ _ - :�� 1 .'�-� 11j^ � _t • � ��. ' , � , �_ . _ �c._� �. ` ^'�„- �-'-"- `_�, a'- -��L� _ -� ,._._.t�__ .�� --� - • ----C . C - � ► ;(�` • ( , ICi� ry �` ' , ,,� , 9 � .- r .'* -,;,: .~ ��` �� ; � � � _ �� .� '�A ' .�ti + �� _ _ �' •)� / �` ,� } - • �,� ' , � 'Y� ' � '�� ' �\ 1 . ��A' ��t �, 7 � �ti, � ' �� : t�l�� .?��+,�j �? _ ,� �T, �,; �� ! �{ 'j� ' 1 i �. -i .�� % }'' ' �; i+ �� .,{) , .,, r ' , � � � �' ,i� � . � �, ; <� � r:.. -. .r . , ,�=�-- �. . ' ' � � r � _ ' � , - ' �'� , + �~ •� �� - 1� ,1 ,1 � ,� •�' ��/ ( ��',�� •� � � �, �� _ { � . ;�E �� _� I . ^� . .__ r r T,` t. �. . i ` � � � ,• '� � LEGEND � '� � � `� �, s 'ti • ='' APPROACH Y� _ � - r 4 �t � s�, � .� � '� r '� � PEAK HOUR � ? � LEVEL OF SERVICE � r �i� r' ��- _ � �� ' E��: ��„}��, � � r r ' INTERSECTION � i. �T��j�� i � PEAK HOUR ` '♦"�—'C O LEVEL OF SERVICE {� } _ (ASAPP�/CASLEJ � I -i Figure 20: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Background Traffic _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 34 H�f� �� '.'.ra �''' � � • r. � �° ➢ ��t i �� C � �� _Ii�N �!�!��A ,'� � .. ,�, �' I �,� �f -_l � �' ' - - C R,�1j .�'�C s r' _ � ,� �'� 11' '�1 1 .� � A ,'.� , �y�/ �ttl�►i�"i' ��S�`. t :� _—� _ � � � A '•1 � . ' 1 �, � + • �� , _ �_�' � ,� , `y . �� 1. I �, / '�. . _..�... �� I�") 'I.�• l� � �f 1 ,� � � •' � ' � ' � ' j� 1' .t� � � t r y: i: tI ,� � 'S il ;{ ! ' '� � �I �� Y � �„u: i�' � � *, � » .... � � 1 , 1 .�� {�-• Y, }� r � .rI * ! � . 1' . .t �� , v,�, ' — t � '_. • ! - :.r � !� .� ;� . � ,� • ( _ _ .. r �.� ,�, a 1. , � ; . ILJ L++ �� ' , . - 'j ti � � -, � ��`' *��-f�-' - . s � � �.�.�, 4��t �fiy�i�t'.�--� � ;:�r+,,,��,i r'.,�� `� _,. .. � ':� . , _,' _. � � , ' r i.� # -;:� C — - �,_ , - � , �� :�,� _ a �� '" �i 1. . .. '_ ; . • ,�' 4 � - ��i f � -_ �_11�+.�lN-i��•,�� - -- � 1� ��.- � � � ,. - -�, �, '.t�� . . .�,- C . C: �. Z,i"'� '� ��- r•.; { 'f.-�` ; � .;�'.`-.; � i�~� � ` ,�� ,` I •, !yt':1}��;,�I:- � �a �'� � � } --�w. ):� ��`,i�' ,� �' + � _ ' .� '�� ' ��J{�� ,��t�..� _ � ;� . . . ��r-e � ,� � ' � ��4 ' ,� y� _ _..... � ` i t � , •` ' �� .'`�` � , +i''•1s li� .�� : �� .� '�,� }. y�, � M��, ' '� �' � t ! , � s �, � , _ _ _ • r ,;�� ., ';' � �� i I�_ �� . �- ; � + � � � - - ,� �,� - - - : '' . ` ' � , •, �^ � ,� LEGEND _E , � �' � . ` s ''► APPROACH ► ; ia.a : , �t .ti ,� • ', � �+ �' �i � PEAK HOUR 4 r �. X � y �`�3 � ` '�� ~�� LEVEL OF SERVICE 1 • �� ' ' ��,�_ ��[;�J � ,��e-fi�I r., INTERSECTION d ��J�' i° " ��1�';!'I': - � •_� PEAK HOUR -�� ' ; _ ��.;;— --"-" " '�-�—� C � - O LEVEL OF SERVICE y ►, ! t (AS APPLlCASLfJ Figure 21: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Total Traffic _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 35 � � . Traffic Operations Each of the study area intersections are currently operating within acceptable levels of service and are projected to continue to do so for estimated 2030 background and total traffic conditions. No additional mitigation measures at any of the included study area intersections are necessary to accommodate projected traffic contributions from the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development based on the analyses performed as a part of this traffic impact study. Safety A significant crash experience trend was not identified at any of the study area intersections. Alternative Modes of Transportation Existing Conditions There are sidewalks available for pedestrians, as previously noted, within the study area on each side of roadways apart from some missing segments primarily adjacent to undeveloped areas along limited portions of South 19th Avenue, Blackwood Road, South 27th Avenue, West Graf Street, and South 23rd Avenue.As noted previously, designated bicycle lanes are currently included on South 27th Avenue and West Graf Street. They are also present on South 19th Avenue north of West Graf Street. Shoulders on South 19th Avenue south of West Graf Street to Blackwood Road may also function as usable bike lanes. Streamline does not currently have any routes in the vicinity of the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood. This may change in the future with growth in the area, increased transit utilization, changes to routes based on population or activity centers, and maintaining system reliability. Proposed Development Pedestrians&Bicyclists Sidewalk connections are proposed within the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood in accordance with City of Bozeman standards. Incorporated pedestrian facilities would link to existing available features within the surrounding Meadow Creek Subdivision development. Transit Service As transit is not currently available nor is service to the immediate area known to be proposed in the future within the development period of the Meadow Bridge Neighborhood no specific improvements are currently proposed with the project. Compliance with Applicable Local Codes The proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development improvements should be installed in accordance with City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, and MDT requirements, as applicable. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��E��G,,��s� � 36 � � � � , � Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic operations, and considerations for alternative modes of transportation reveal that the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development will have minimal impact on the area traffic operations. As with any development, there will be an increase in traffic volumes with the buildout of the proposed project. Residents in Meadow Creek Subdivision are likely to note an increase in traffic volumes in the study area that can be managed with existing intersection traffic control in-place along the corridor. Based on the analyses included herein, the following are recommended as appropriate: Study Area Intersections No substandard traffic operations or other transportation related impacts were identified through the year 2030 analyses for estimated non-site or total traffic conditions at any of the study area intersections. Site Circulation ■ Internal roadways and intersections should be designed for the appropriate vehicles, including emergency and solid waste vehicles as well as buses, as necessary. ■ Adequate sight distance must be preserved at internal intersections and crosswalks for driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety in accordance with City of Bozeman and AASHTO standards. Alternative Modes of Transportation Pedestrians& Bicyclists The proposed sidewalk and pathway connections within the proposed Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development will allow for circulation within the development and provide ties to the existing network within Meadow Creek Subdivision. Transit Service No specific additional improvements for transit service features are proposed within the Meadow Bridge Neighborhood development. Improvements & Traffic Control Guidance Development improvements should be installed in accordance with City of Bozeman requirements, the most current editions of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, Gallatin County transportation standards, and the Manual on Uniform Tratfic Control Devices. _ _ � ��5 . , . , . , , , . � , , , , � J _. , � �. ��,�s�c 37 1. Abelin Traffic Services. (March 23, 2021). Blackwood Groves TIS Addendum. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman. 2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2018). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2018 7th Edition - 2nd Printing. Washington, DC. 3. E5 Engineering, PLLC. (January 2022).Traffic Impact Study Update: Buffalo Run. Bozeman, MT. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (September 2017). Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Washington, DC. 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2021). Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Washington, DC. 6. Marvin &Associates. (December 3, 2019). Traffic Impact Study Report for Nexus Point&Graf Street Apartments. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman. 7. Marvin, Robert R. (June 15, 2022). Graf Street Apartments Letter. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman. 8. Montana Department of Transportation. (2024). Traffic Count Database System. https://mdt.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?Ioc=Mdt&mod=tcds&local_id=16-3A-023. 9. Sanderson Stewart. (February 2023). South Range Crossing Subdivision Traffic Impact Study. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman. 10. Sanderson Stewart. (March 2023). Jarrett Subdivision Traffic Impact Study. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman. 11. Transportation Research Board. (2022). Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition � A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies of Sciences• Engineering• Medicine. 12. United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division. (September 15, 2010). 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Washington, DC. 13. United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. (December 2023). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 11th Edition. Washington, DC. . �J � . , . , , , . , _ _ � , , . . �5 _. . � �. ��E��G,.��s� � . �J ,� � � � ' EA��INEE't��A��f R�E� � e n �x Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance Appendix A: Level of Service Concepts,Analysis Methodologies,&Standards of Significance � A-1 - � � � The method presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7t" Edition � A Guide for Multimodal MobilityAnalysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB)for evaluating unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections is based on the average total delay for each impeded movement. As used here, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue to the first-in-queue position. The average total delay for any minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation.The resulting delay is used to determine the level of service as shown in Table A-1 below. Table A-1: Level of Service Criteria for Stop-Controlled Intersections � � 1 - � I <_ 10 seconds A Little or no delay 10.0 - 15.0 seconds B Short traffic delay 15.0 - 25.0 seconds C Average traffic delay 25.0 - 35.0 seconds D Long traffic delays 35.0 - 50.0 seconds E Very long traffic delays When the demand exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme > 50.0 seconds F delays will be encountered, and queuing may cause severe congestion to the intersection. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7�h Edition � A Guide for Multimodal MobilityAnalysis(Transportation Research Board, 2022) 5� a o 6 v � � � � � " " " •' d' !r L 40 � �' 61 v v Z v u V �30 0 �20 � U �� 0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1200 1400 1 ni ii i Source: Highway Capacity Manua12000, - Page 17-24 f}_,+,+rri�rr�t Flaw I�#e {veh/h) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) Figure A-1: Control Delay and Flow Rate � . � . � � � � � � � � � • �� -• , �...� ��,�ssc A-2 � Appendix A:Level of Service Concepts,Analysis Methodologies,&Standards of Significance - � � � The operational analysis method for signalized intersections presented in the HCM defines level of service in terms of delay, or more specifically, control stopped delay per vehicle. Delay is a measure of driver and/or passenger discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The level of service criteria for signalized intersections is presented in Table A-2 below: Table A-2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections � � � - � � Operations with very low delay.This occurs when progression is <_ 10 seconds A extremely favorable, and most vehicles do not cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Operations with generally good progression and/or short cycle 10.0 - 20.0 seconds B lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Operations with higher delays,which may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures 20.0 - 35.0 seconds C may begin to appear at this level.The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Operations with high delay, resulting from some combination of 35.0 - 55.0 seconds D unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes.The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable,and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 55.0 - 80.0 seconds E Considered being the limit of acceptable delay. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. A condition of excessively high delay considered unacceptable to most drivers.This condition often occurs when arrival flow > 80.0 seconds F rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7�h Edition � A Guide for Multimodal MobilityAnalysis(Transportation Research Board,2022) . � . � . � � i _ i � � � i • �� -. , �...� ��,�ssc . �J � � � � ' El1fGINEERING, PLLC � e n �x Traffic Count Data �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" South 19th Avenue&Blackwood Road J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-05 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'31.49"N � Longitude:111°03'46.66"W -------------------------------------------------------Weekday,AM Peak Period------------------------------------------------------- . �, �� - • • . 7.00 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 32 0 0 0 0 32 2 29 0 0 0 0 31 7:15 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 65 0 0 0 0 65 1 32 1 0 0 0 34 � 730 AM 5 1 1 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 91 1 0 0 0 92 1 34 0 0 0 0 35 7:45 AM 5 0 2 0 0 0 7 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 116 2 0 0 0 118 1 55 1 0 0 0 57 8:00 AM 6 0 2 0 0 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 133 4 0 0 0 139 1 54 0 0 1 0 55 8:15 AM 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 91 0 0 0 0 92 1 64 4 0 0 0 69 � 830 AM 3 1 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 87 0 0 0 0 87 1 43 2 0 0 0 46 8:45 AM 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 81 0 0 0 0 82 1 53 1 0 1 0 55 � i i � � � i i � i � � � 7:45 AM 5 0 2 0 0 0 7 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 116 2 0 0 0 118 1 55 1 0 0 0 57 8:00 AM 6 0 2 0 0 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 133 4 0 0 0 139 1 54 0 0 1 0 55 �� 8:15 AM 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 91 0 0 0 0 92 1 64 4 0 0 0 69 8'30 AM 3 1 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 87 0 0 0 0 87 1 43 2 0 0 0 46 � i i i i i i i i i i � i i °/a HEAVY 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 227% 0.00°/a 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 21.05% 0.00% 2.73°/a 0.00% 0.00% 2.69% 0.00°/a 7.14% 11.11% 0.00% 7.07°/a 4.43% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.57°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.57% 0.00°/a 0.82% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.79°/a �.6�% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total BiCyCles Crossing 7 216 4 1 0 .� j �► �—► ♦--► i a 1 t s , "� z —r � f— o o � � � ��: � o o � �� o � � r 3 � t r� �-► �-► 3 427 6 0 0 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Int-Ol_5-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd_202409_10+11 Page 1 of 2�11/17/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" South 19th Avenue&Blackwood Road J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-05 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'31.49"N � Longitude:111°03'46.66"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_,_Weekday,PMPeakPeriod ��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4�.00 PM 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 2 67 1 0 0 0 70 2 105 2 0 0 1 109 4:15 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 64 1 0 0 0 66 1 85 7 0 0 0 93 4:30 PM 6 0 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 63 0 0 0 0 64 1 93 7 0 0 0 101 4:45 PM 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 61 0 0 0 0 62 1 87 3 0 0 0 91 5:00 PM 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 69 0 0 0 0 70 0 90 5 0 0 0 95 5:15 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 73 1 0 0 0 76 0 103 9 0 0 0 112 �� 5:30 PM 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 79 1 0 0 0 81 1 117 2 0 0 0 120 5:45 PM 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 65 1 0 0 0 68 0 104 5 0 0 0 109 � � i i � i � � i � i �� i � i 5:00 PM 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 69 0 0 0 0 70 0 90 5 0 0 0 95 5:15 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 73 1 0 0 0 76 0 103 9 0 0 0 112 5:30 PM 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 79 1 0 0 0 81 1 117 2 0 0 0 120 5 45 PM 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 65 1 0 0 0 68 0 104 5 0 0 0 109 � � i i � i i i i i i i i i i i %HEAVY 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 7.14°/a 0.00% 5.88°/a 0.00% 5.91°/a 20.00°/a 0.00% 5.92% 16.67% 2.17% 0.00°/a 0.00% 2.17°/a 3.61% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 1.29°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 1.26% 0.00°/a 0.51% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.48°/a �.]6% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 21 414 1 0 0 .� j b �-► ♦--► 04 � � � 0 0 1 � 1 1 0 1 �,,' 1 0 4 � r 0 �' ♦ �' i ti 1 � �� 6 286 3 0 0 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh01_5-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd_202409_10+11 Page 2 of 2�11/17/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" Blackwood Road&South 23rd Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-01 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'31.20"N � Longitude:111°04'03.40"W ------------------------------------------------------ WEEKDAY,AM PEAK PERIOD------------------------------------------------------ . �, �� . .. 7'.00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 730 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 7 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 7 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 8 8:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 1 3 0 7 830 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 � � � i i i � � i � � i � i � 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 7 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 7 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 8 8'15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 1 3 0 7 � i i i i i i i � i i i i i i i °/a HEAVY 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33°/a 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 2.44°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 2.33°/a 3.57% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a O.00% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 0 27 6 0 •� �► f--�► f--�► 0 1 t s . � �'� o —r � f— o o � � � ��: � o o � �� o F-�► F-�► 0 0 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 Int-02_Blackwood-Rd+5-23rd-Ave_202409_10+11 Page lof2 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" Blackwood Road&South 23rd Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-01 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'31.20"N � Longitude:111°04'03.40"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_, WEEKDAY,PMPEAKPERIOD��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4.00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 1 2 0 6 4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 7 4:45PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 7 � � � i i i � � i � i � i � 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 7 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 515PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 � � i i i i i i i i i i i i i %HEAVY 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.86°/a 0.00°/a 100.00%a 5.56°/a 2.2]% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a O.00% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 0 18 4 0 •� �• �-�► �--�► 0 �► P9 � 07 3 1 � 1 0 0 1 �,,' 1 0 �' ♦ �' i F� F� 1 0 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 Int-02_Blackwood-Rd+5-23rd-Ave_202409_10+11 Page2 of2 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" Blackwood Road&Parkway Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-07 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'31.20"N � Longitude:111°04'12 97"W ------------------------------------------------------ WEEKDAY,AM PEAK PERIOD------------------------------------------------------ . �, �� • 7'.00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 730 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 3 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 830 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 � � i i � i � i � � i i � i � i 7:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 3 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 8:15AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 8'30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 � i i i i i i i i i i i i i °/a HEAVY 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 57.14% 0.00% 50.00% 4�.��% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 57.14% 0.00% 50.00% 4�.��% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 4 0 6 0 •� �► f--�► f--�► � 1 t o , � �'� o —r � f— o o � � � ��: � z o � �� o F� F-�► z o 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 Int-03_Blackwood-Rd+Parkway-Ave_202409_10+11 Page lof2 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" Blackwood Road&Parkway Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-07 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'31.20"N � Longitude:111°04'12 97"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_, WEEKDAY,PMPEAKPERIOD��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4.00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4:15PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5:15PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 � � i i i � i � � i i � i � � 5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5:15PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 545PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 � � i i � i i i i i i i i i i i %HEAVY 33.33°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 33.33°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 66.67% 0.00% 66.67% 44.44% VEHICLES °/a BUSES �6.67°/a 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 16.67°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 11.11% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 2 0 4 0 •� �• �-�► �--�► � 1 � ° 1 ' �' 1 1 1 0 �► � � 0 0 � � �' � 3 0 � �,' � 0 F� F� 2 0 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 Int-03_Blackwood-Rd+Parkway-Ave_202409_10+11 Page2 of2 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" Blackwood Road&South 27th Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-04 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'30.98"N � Longitude:111°04'23.41"W ------------------------------------------------------ WEEKDAY,AM PEAK PERIOD------------------------------------------------------ . �, �� - 7'.00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 730 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 8:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 i 830 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 � � i i � i � � i � � � 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8'00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 � i i i i i i i i i i i i °/a HEAVY 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 7.69% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 7.69% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 2 1 3 0 •� �► f--�► f--�► a 1 t s , � � o —r � f— o o � � � ��: � i o � �� o F� F-�► i o 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 Int-04_Blackwood-Rd+5-27th-Ave_202409_10+11 Page lof2 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" Blackwood Road&South 27th Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-04 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'30.98"N � Longitude:111°04'23.41"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_, WEEKDAY,PMPEAKPERIOD��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4�.00 PM 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Z 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 � 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 5:15PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 � � i i i � � � � � � 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 5:15PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 545PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 � � i i � i � � i i i i i %HEAVY 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00°/a 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00°/a 0.00% 20.00% 25.��% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 16.67% 0.00°/a 0.00% 10.00% 6.25% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 3 5 4 0 •� �• �-�► �--�► � � � � 1 ' �' 1 1 1 o —► � � o o � � �� o o l c�b � o �� 2 1 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 Int-04_Blackwood-Rd+5-27th-Ave_202409_10+11 Page2 of2 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" South 27th Avenue&Kurk Drive J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-06 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'42.94"N � Longitude:111°04'22.15"W -------------------------------------------------------Weekday,AM Peak Period------------------------------------------------------- �• �• - - . 7'.00 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7:15AM 9 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 0 0 2 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 � 730 AM 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7:45 AM 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 10 0 0 2 1 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 8:00 AM 11 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 5 0 1 0 8 8:15AM 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 3 3 6 0 0 0 12 830 AM 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 7 8:45 AM 5 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 0 1 0 5 � � � i i � � � i i � � �� 7:45AM 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 10 0 0 2 1 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 8:00 AM 11 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 5 0 1 0 8 8:15AM 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 3 3 6 0 0 0 12 8'30 AM 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 7 � i i i i i i i i i i i °/a HEAVY ��po�o 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 3.23°/a 0.00% 0.00% 3.13% 16.67% 0.00% 4.17°/a 0.00% 5.00°/a 2.76% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 3.23°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 3.13% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 2.50°/a 1.38% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total BiCyCles Crossing 17 8 5 1 0 .� j �► �—► ♦--► 33 �' '� 6 � � � �' 1 �► � 1� 0 1 � � 4 0 � � �� 1 o � r , 1 �� 1 1 1 �1 1 f�-�► �-�► 0 17 0 7 1 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh05_5-27th-Ave+Kurk-0r_202409_10+11 Page 1 of 2�10/17/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" South 27th Avenue&Kurk Drive J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-06 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'42.94"N � Longitude:111°04'22.15"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,_,_��_,_,_Weekday,PMPeakPeriod ��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4�.00 PM 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 Z 5 0 0 0 8 4:15PM 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 6 0 1 0 10 4:30 PM 6 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 4 0 0 0 8 4:45 PM 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 1 2 2 2 8 0 0 0 12 i 5:00 PM 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 2 4 6 0 0 0 12 5:15PM 4 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 5 11 0 1 0 18 5:30 PM 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 4 11 0 0 1 17 5:45 PM 4 2 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 0 4 3 4 9 0 0 0 16 � � i � � i �� i 5:00 PM 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 1 Z 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 2 4 6 0 0 0 12 5:15PM 4 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 5 11 0 1 0 18 5:30 PM 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 4 11 0 0 1 17 545PM 4 2 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 0 4 3 4 9 0 0 0 16 � � i i i i i i %HEAVY 0.00% 50.00% 50.00°/a 0.00% 7.32% 50.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 21.43% 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/a 3.70% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.99°/a 3.91% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 3.70% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.99°/a 0.56% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 37 17 9 1 1 .� j b �-► �-► 13 � � � 1 1 1 � 1 3 1 1 �,,' 1 2 1 � � 3 �' ♦ �' i ti 1 � �� 0 12 1 5 1 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh05_5-27th-Ave+Kurk-0r_202409_10+11 Page 2 of 2�10/17/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" West Graf Street&South 27th Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-08 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'55.39"N � Longitude:111°04'23.02"W -------------------------------------------------------Weekday,AM Peak Period------------------------------------------------------- 7'.00AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 7:15AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 8 6 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 2 0 3 730 AM 1 2 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 2 0 1 0 4 1 8 8 0 2 0 17 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 7:45 AM 1 8 0 0 1 0 9 2 1 4 0 0 0 7 0 11 13 0 2 0 24 5 1 2 0 0 0 8 8:00 AM 0 8 0 0 1 0 8 4 2 5 0 0 0 11 0 3 12 0 0 0 15 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 8:15AM 0 4 0 0 1 1 4 9 1 3 0 2 0 13 0 2 9 0 1 1 11 2 2 2 0 1 0 6 830 AM 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 4 2 3 0 0 0 9 0 2 8 0 2 0 10 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 8:45 AM 0 4 0 0 2 0 4 4 3 3 0 2 0 10 0 2 5 0 1 0 7 1 2 1 0 2 0 4 � � i � � �� i �� 7:30 AM 1 2 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 2 0 1 0 4 1 8 8 0 2 0 17 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 7:45 AM 1 8 0 0 1 0 9 2 1 4 0 0 0 7 0 11 13 0 2 0 24 5 1 2 0 0 0 8 8:00 AM 0 8 0 0 1 0 8 4 2 5 0 0 0 11 0 3 12 0 0 0 15 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 8'15 AM 0 4 0 0 1 1 4 9 1 3 0 2 0 13 0 2 9 0 1 1 11 2 2 2 0 1 0 6 � i i i i i � i °/a HEAVY 0.00% 3.23°/a 0.00% 0.00% 2.94% 3.70°/a 8.33% 4.76°/a 0.00% 5.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 3.13% 0.00% 1.89% 6.25°/a 6.67% 1429% 0.00% 7.89°/a 3.7$% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 3.70°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 1.67°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 1.56% 0.00°/a 0.94% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a Q.$4% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total BiCyCles Crossing 5 8 12 2 0 .� j �► �—► ♦--► z 1 '� ia . � ��' 22 �► � 1� 5 5 1 �.� ��: 1 3 1 1 �� 1 0 0 � r 16 � � � � � � � F� F�► 1 24 42 5 1 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh06_W-6raf-St+5-27th-Ave_202409_10+11 Page 1 of 2�11/7/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" West Graf Street&South 27th Avenue J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-08 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'55.39"N � Longitude:111°04'23.02"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_,_Weekday,PMPeakPeriod ��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4.00 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 3 0 0 0 11 1 3 6 0 0 0 10 4 3 0 0 0 0 7 4:15PM 0 3 1 0 1 0 4 8 5 5 0 0 0 18 1 2 3 0 0 0 6 2 4 2 0 0 0 8 4:30 PM 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 4 3 5 0 1 0 12 0 3 7 0 0 0 10 0 4 1 0 1 1 5 4:45PM 1 4 0 0 4 0 5 8 2 3 0 1 0 13 0 2 6 0 1 1 8 3 6 1 0 4 1 10 5:00 PM 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 8 4 3 0 2 1 15 0 6 6 0 0 1 12 1 6 0 0 2 0 7 5:15PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 4 2 1 1 0 18 0 6 3 0 1 0 9 3 8 1 0 1 0 12 �i 5:30 PM 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 11 2 2 0 1 0 15 0 4 4 0 1 1 8 1 5 2 0 1 0 8 5:45PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 11 3 5 0 1 0 19 1 2 6 0 1 1 9 2 7 1 0 1 1 10 � i i � � 5:00 PM 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 S 4 3 0 2 1 15 0 6 6 0 0 1 12 1 6 0 0 2 0 7 5:15PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 4 2 1 1 0 18 0 6 3 0 1 0 9 3 8 1 0 1 0 12 �i 5:30 PM 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 11 2 2 0 1 0 15 0 4 4 0 1 1 8 1 5 2 0 1 0 8 545PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 11 3 5 0 1 0 19 1 2 6 0 1 1 9 2 7 1 0 1 1 10 � � i i i i %HEAVY 0.00% 5.56°/a 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 3.03°/a 3.85% 7.14°/a 0.00% 4.13°/a 66.67°/a 0.00°/a 4.88% 0.00% 5.56% 6.25°/a 2.33% 0.00°/a 0.00% 2.99°/a Q.2�% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 1.52°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.83°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.35% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 4 26 7 5 1 .� j b �-► �-► 5 � � � 13 2 1 � 1 5 1 1 �,,' 1 1 2 � � 41 �' ♦ �' i ti 1 � �� 1 18 19 3 3 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh06_W-6rafSt+S-27th-Ave_202409_10+11 Page 2 of 2�11/7/2024 . �� Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" West Graf Street&Enterprise Boulevard J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. DataCollectionMethod: VideoTrafficRecorder� UnitE5-09 SetupLocation: Latitude:45°38'57.55"N � Longitude:111°04'10.52"W -------------------------------------------------------Weekday,AM Peak Period------------------------------------------------------- 7'.00 AM 1 6 0 0 2 0 7 1 2 2 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 0 0 1 0 8 7:15AM 2 8 1 0 1 0 11 1 2 5 1 3 0 9 0 1 5 0 2 0 6 3 1 2 0 1 0 6 730 AM 1 15 0 0 2 0 16 1 4 2 0 0 0 7 1 2 4 0 1 0 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 7:45 AM 3 34 0 0 2 0 37 2 3 6 0 1 0 11 2 5 7 0 0 1 14 3 2 1 1 1 0 7 8:00 AM 1 27 1 0 2 0 29 2 10 7 0 0 0 19 1 3 13 0 1 1 17 7 3 3 0 1 0 13 8:15 AM 2 14 1 0 0 0 17 3 12 10 0 1 0 25 1 2 4 0 1 1 7 4 3 2 0 1 1 9 �� 830 AM 4 12 1 0 2 0 17 5 5 7 0 1 0 17 2 3 6 0 0 0 11 10 2 4 0 1 0 16 8:45 AM 1 11 0 0 2 0 12 1 8 6 0 0 0 15 1 3 2 0 1 0 6 3 2 2 0 1 0 7 � i i � i: � i �� 7:45 AM 3 34 0 0 2 0 37 2 3 6 0 1 0 11 2 5 7 0 0 1 14 3 2 1 1 1 0 7 8:00 AM 1 27 1 0 2 0 29 2 10 7 0 0 0 19 1 3 13 0 1 1 17 7 3 3 0 1 0 13 8:15 AM 2 14 1 0 0 0 17 3 12 10 0 1 0 25 1 2 4 0 1 1 7 4 3 2 0 1 1 9 8'30 AM 4 12 1 0 2 0 17 5 5 7 0 1 0 17 2 3 6 0 0 0 11 10 2 4 0 1 0 16 � i i i ii i i i i i i i i °/a HEAVY 6.67% 0.79°/a 0.00% 0.00% 1.37% 0.00°/a 2.17% 11.11% 0.00% 5.56°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50°/a 12.50°/a 1429% 0.00% 7.04°/a 3.30% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 6.67% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.68% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 7.14°/a 0.00% 1.41°/a 0.51% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total BiCyCles Crossing 10 10 24 4 1 •� j �► ♦--► ♦--► ,0 1 t so , � �"'�� 87 �► � 1� 30 6 1 �.� ��: 1 3 0 1 � �� 1 0 3 �, r �2 i i i i �l 1 f F� F�► 6 13 30 2 3 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow BridgeTlS\Traffic Count Data\Inh07_W-6rafSt+Enterprise-Blvd_202409_10+11 Page 1 of 2�11/16/2024 . �� Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" West Graf Street&Enterprise Boulevard J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. DataCollectionMethod: VideoTrafficRecorder� UnitE5-09 SetupLocation: Latitude:45°38'57.55"N � Longitude:111°04'10.52"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_,_Weekday,PMPeakPeriod ��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,��,_,_,_,_,��. 4�.00 PM 1 14 0 0 Z 0 15 3 13 4 0 0 0 20 0 3 1 0 Z 0 4 8 3 2 0 0 0 13 4:15 PM 0 10 0 0 2 0 10 2 14 7 0 0 0 23 1 4 7 0 0 0 12 4 3 4 0 1 0 11 4:30 PM 0 12 0 0 2 0 12 2 11 5 0 1 0 18 1 1 3 0 1 0 5 6 3 3 0 2 1 12 4:45 PM 1 11 0 0 2 1 12 5 14 6 0 1 0 25 2 2 8 0 1 0 12 5 5 1 0 1 1 11 5:00 PM 1 11 0 0 2 0 12 5 18 3 0 0 1 26 0 3 3 0 0 1 6 10 6 2 0 0 1 18 5:15 PM 2 6 0 0 1 0 8 4 22 8 0 2 1 34 1 3 3 0 1 0 7 6 2 2 0 1 0 10 5:30 PM 1 7 0 0 2 0 8 5 19 4 0 1 0 28 0 3 5 0 1 1 8 10 4 3 0 0 1 17 5:45 PM 1 11 1 0 2 0 13 6 20 5 0 2 0 31 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 2 7 5 0 1 0 14 � i •i � i � i � i� 5:00 PM 1 11 0 0 2 0 12 5 18 3 0 0 1 26 0 3 3 0 0 1 6 10 6 2 0 0 1 18 5:15 PM 2 6 0 0 1 0 8 4 22 8 0 2 1 34 1 3 3 0 1 0 7 6 2 2 0 1 0 10 5:30 PM 1 7 0 0 2 0 8 5 19 4 0 1 0 28 0 3 5 0 1 1 8 10 4 3 0 0 1 17 5 45 PM 1 11 1 0 2 0 13 6 20 5 0 2 0 31 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 2 7 5 0 1 0 14 � � i i i i i i i i %HEAVY 14 29��a 2 44°/a 0.00% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00°/a 1.53% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.98°/a 16.67°/a 5.00°/a 3.23% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00°/a 3.03% 13.64% 0.00% 3.77°/a 2.62% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 3.23% 0.00°/a 1.75% 0.00°/a 0.00% 4.55°/a 0.00% 0.94°/a 0.44% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 12 19 28 2 2 .� j b �-► ♦--► 35 � � � 79 7 1 � 1 5 0 1 �,,' 1 2 1 � j 20 +' ♦ +' ♦ ti 1 � �� 2 10 12 4 3 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh07_W-6rafSt+Enterprise-Blvd_202409_10+11 Page 2 of 2�11/16/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" South 19th Avenue&West Graf Street J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-10 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'57.98"N � Longitude:111°03'43.42"W -------------------------------------------------------Weekday,AM Peak Period------------------------------------------------------- 7'.00 AM 9 3 2 0 0 1 14 1 5 11 0 0 0 17 0 35 4 0 1 0 39 7 30 8 0 1 0 45 7:15 AM 10 7 2 0 0 0 19 2 4 17 0 0 0 23 2 72 9 0 1 0 83 10 32 8 0 0 0 50 730 AM 12 23 2 0 0 2 37 5 4 30 0 0 1 39 0 88 15 0 0 2 103 25 30 6 0 1 1 61 7:45 AM 26 22 3 0 1 1 51 6 6 52 0 0 1 64 3 112 25 0 1 4 140 56 50 10 0 1 0 116 8:00 AM 18 31 4 0 1 0 53 11 12 83 0 0 0 106 5 116 28 0 1 1 149 83 48 8 0 0 0 139 8:15 AM 14 13 3 0 0 1 30 13 16 74 0 0 0 103 4 94 19 0 1 1 117 25 53 14 0 1 1 92 i i 830 AM 26 17 4 0 0 1 47 4 12 26 0 0 0 42 1 91 9 0 1 2 101 21 44 9 0 0 1 74 8:45 AM 14 14 2 0 0 2 30 5 8 31 0 1 0 44 4 86 9 0 1 1 99 17 52 8 0 0 1 77 � i i � i � i- 7:45 AM 26 22 3 0 1 1 51 6 6 52 0 0 1 64 3 112 25 0 1 4 140 56 50 10 0 1 0 116 8:00 AM 18 31 4 0 1 0 53 11 12 83 0 0 0 106 5 116 28 0 1 1 149 83 48 8 0 0 0 139 8:15 AM 14 13 3 0 0 1 30 13 16 74 0 0 0 103 4 94 19 0 1 1 117 25 53 14 0 1 1 92 8'30 AM 26 17 4 0 0 1 47 4 12 26 0 0 0 42 1 91 9 0 1 2 101 21 44 9 0 0 1 74 � i i i i i � °/aHEAVY p33% 0.00°/a 9.09% 0.00% 1.78% 8.51°/a 0.00% 2.16°/a 0.00% 2.51°/a 10.53°/a 2.88°/a 0.85% 0.00% 2.77% 2.46°/a 6.49% 8.45°/a 0.00% 5.20°/a 3.31% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.00% 1.54°/a 0.00% 1.14°/a 0.00% 0.58°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.48% 0.82°/a 0.59% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.61°/a Q.59% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,AM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total BiCyCles Crossing 41 195 185 2 2 .� l �► �—► ♦--► 84 �' '� 235 � � � �' 83 '�► � F 46 2 1 �.� ��: 1 0 3 1 � �� 1 1 14 � r 34 i i i i �l 1 f ~�► ~�► 13 413 81 4 8 619 Milestone Drive•eelgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Int-08_5-19th-Ave+W-Graf-St_202409_10+11 Page 1 of 2�11/20/2024 �� l Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary � —" South 19th Avenue&West Graf Street J Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana ENQINEERINQ,PLLC Date Count Performed: Average of September 10&11,2024 CountTime Periods: Weekday,AM&PM Peak Periods Tuesday&Wednesday 7:00-9:00 a.m.&4:00-6:00 p.m. Data Collection Method: Video Traffic Recorder� Unit E5-10 Setup Location: Latitude:45°38'57.98"N � Longitude:111°03'43.42"W _,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_�_,��_,_,_Weekday,PMPeakPeriod ��_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_��,_,_,_,_,��. 4�.00 PM 17 10 6 0 0 0 33 10 12 32 0 0 0 54 2 69 4 0 0 1 75 37 108 10 0 0 1 155 4:15 PM 14 9 3 0 0 0 26 14 14 24 0 0 1 52 3 69 8 0 0 1 80 33 83 14 0 1 1 130 4:30 PM 16 9 5 0 0 0 30 15 13 34 0 0 0 62 2 70 6 0 1 0 78 33 93 11 0 0 0 137 4:45 PM 18 10 3 0 0 0 31 14 17 24 0 0 0 55 3 67 8 0 0 0 78 25 80 9 0 0 1 114 5:00 PM 16 13 4 0 0 2 33 8 21 24 0 0 0 53 1 80 6 0 1 2 87 37 102 17 0 0 0 156 5:15 PM 14 13 2 0 1 1 29 11 25 24 0 1 0 60 7 76 8 0 1 1 91 35 114 15 0 0 2 164 5:30 PM 17 10 4 0 0 0 31 14 19 26 0 0 0 59 5 74 5 0 0 1 84 34 115 17 0 1 0 166 5:45 PM 17 8 2 0 1 0 27 15 16 28 0 0 0 59 3 73 8 0 1 2 84 29 108 18 0 0 1 155 � i �� i � i :� � 5:00 PM 16 13 4 0 0 2 33 S 21 24 0 0 0 53 1 80 6 0 1 2 87 37 102 V 0 0 0 156 5:15 PM 14 13 2 0 1 1 29 11 25 24 0 1 0 60 7 76 8 0 1 1 91 35 114 15 0 0 2 164 5:30 PM 17 10 4 0 0 0 31 14 19 26 0 0 0 59 5 74 5 0 0 1 84 34 115 17 0 1 0 166 5 45 PM 17 8 2 0 1 0 27 15 16 28 0 0 0 59 3 73 8 0 1 2 84 29 108 18 0 0 1 155 � i � i i i i i � %HEAVY 233% 0.00°/a 6.90% 0.00% 2.08% 2.97°/a 0.00% 1.85°/a 0.00% 1.54°/a 0.00% 5.71°/a 1.89% 0.00% 5.18% 1.52°/a 2.24% 2.70°/a 0.00% 2.12°/a 2.$�% VEHICLES °/a BUSES 0.00% 0.00°/a 3.45% 0.00°/a 0.42% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.46°/a 0.00% 0.22°/a 0.00% 1.04°/a 0.00% 0.00°/a 0.91% 0.76°/a 0.37% 0.00°/a 0.00% 0.42°/a �.5�% &RVs Total Vehicles�Weekday,PM Peak Period Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing 67 439 135 1 3 .� j b �-► �-► 44 � � � ,812 2 1 � 1 1 3 1 �,,' 1 0 12 � j 48 + ♦ + ♦ '1 t �' �-► �� 16 303 27 3 6 619 Mllestone Drive•Belgrade,Montana 59714-7245• •(406)2093960 E:\ES Engineering PLLC\Projects\24-0109 Meadow Bridge TIS\Traffic Count Data\Inh08_5-19th-Ave+W-Graf-St_202409_10+11 Page 2 of 2�11/20/2024 . �J � � � � ' El1fGINEERING, PLLC � e n �x Trip Generation Analyses �—,�� Estimated Trip Generation Summary E�F.�^�°^�° Meadow Bridge Neighborhood � Yellow Zone-Single Family Detached Housing 210 12 DU Total Estimatetl Vehide Tri Ends 63 63 126 2 7 9 8 4 12 Yellow Zone-Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs) 210 12 DU Total Estimatetl Vehide Trip Ends 63 63 126 2 7 9 8 4 12 Pink Zone-Single Family Detached Housing 210 10 DU Total Estimatetl Vehide Trip Ends 52 52 104 2 6 8 6 4 10 Pink Zone-Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs) 210 10 DU Total Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 52 52 104 2 6 8 6 4 10 Red Zone-Single Family Detached Housing 210 23 DU Total Estimatetl Vehide Trip Ends 119 119 238 5 13 18 15 9 24 � � 1Units: DU=Dwelling Units �n�r�=0.92�n�x) � 2 sa EsGmaletl Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday T=Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 50°/o Entering 50°/o ExiGng R�=0.95 X=Dwelling Units Estimatetl Vehicle Trip Entls On a Weektlay, Ln(T)=0.91 Ln(X)+0.12 Peak Hour of Atljacent Street Traffic, T=Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 25°/a Entering 75°/a Exiting Rz=0.90 One Hour Between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. X=Dwelling Units Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday, Ln(T)=0.94 Ln(X)+0.27 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, T=EsfimafedVehicle Trip Ends 63%Entering 37%Exiting RZ=0.92 One Hour Between 4:00 antl 6:00 p.m. X=Dwelling Units Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers-Trip Generation Manual,Ilth Edition (2021). Meatlow-Bridge_Estimated-Trip-Generation Page 1 of 1 . �J � � � � ' El1fGINEERING, PLLC � e n �x Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) Analyses for Vehicular Traffic •�.1� Traffic Growth Rate Analyses �� Study Area ENqfNE£RING,PLLC MDT Count Location 16-3A-023 (South 19th Avenue, State Secondary Highway 345 - North of Goldenstein Lane) Reported 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year Year AADT AAGR AAGR AAGR AAGR � 2014 4,430 - - - - � 2015 6,340 43.12% - - - � . � . 2016 6,125 -3.39% - - - • � 2017 6,076 -0.80% - - - ' : . 2018 7,395 21.71% 5.26% - - . 2019 7,439 0.59% 6.69% 10.92% - . � . 2020 6,918 -7.00% 4.42% 1.76% - , 2021 6,680 -3.44% -3.33% 1.75% - 2022 6,727 0.70°/a -3.30% 2.06% - 2023 6,767 0.59% -0.73% -1.76% - 2024 6,864 1.43% 0.91°/a 4.48°/a , , AADT=Average Annual Daily Traffic AAGR=Average Annual Growth Rate AADT data obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Meadow-Bridge_Traffic-Growth-Projections Page 1 of 2 •�.1� Traffic Growth Rate Analyses �� Study Area ENqfNE£RING,PLLC MDT Count Location 16-3B-023 (South 19th Avenue - North of Stucky Road) Reportetl 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year Year AADT AAGR AAGR AAGR AAGR � 2013 9,940 - - - - � 2014 11,310 13.78% - - - � . 2015 13,740 21.49% - - - , � 2016 13,458 -2.05% - - - . 2017 13,229 -1.70% 5.36% - - 2018 13,242 0.10% -1.22% 5.90% - . . 2019 13,321 0.60% -0.34% 3.33% - 2020 10,172 -23.64% -8.39% -5.84% - 2021 10,986 8.00°/a -6.04% -3.98% - 2022 11,063 0.70% -6.00% -3.51% - 2023 14,923 34.89°/a 13.63% 2.42% 4.15°/a , , AADT=Average Annual Daily Traffic AAGR=Average Annual Growth Rate AADT data obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Meadow-Bridge_Traffic-Growth-Projections Page 2 of 2 . �J � � � � ' ENGINEERING, PLLC ■ e n �x Capacity & Level-of-Service (LOS) Analyses � 1 1 ' 1 IN THIS SECTION: Capacity & Level-of-Service (LOS) Analyses �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: south ssth nvenue a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Blackwood Road Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 18 2 7 0 3 0 8 0 3 427 6 0 4 216 7 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 21 2 8 0 3 0 9 0 3 497 7 0 5 251 8 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 0 0 1 0 1 Lane Gfoup LTR LTR LTR L T R 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 31 13 508 5 251 8 44 816 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 367 438 1,317 1,071 1,800 1,500 805 6,493 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.09 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.14 0.01 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 8 3 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 1,200 365 550 175 560 365 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 15.7 13.5 0.1 8.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service,LOS C B A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 15.7 13.5 0.1 0.1 Approach Level of Service,LOS C B A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 21 2 7 0 10 0 34 0 3 489 15 0 27 248 10 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 24 2 8 0 12 0 40 0 3 569 17 0 31 289 12 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 0 0 2 0 2 Estimated Lane G�oup LTR LTR LTR L T R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 35 51 590 31 2S9 12 86 1,008 Background Capacity,c(veh/h�) 256 394 1,273 984 1,800 1,500 650 6,207 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.14 0.13 0.46 0.03 0.16 0.01 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 13 11 0 3 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 1,200 365 550 175 560 365 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 21.2 I5.5 0.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 Level of Service,LOS C C A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 21.2 I5.5 0.1 0.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 27 3 11 0 10 0 34 0 4 489 15 0 27 248 12 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 31 3 13 0 12 0 40 0 5 570 17 0 31 289 14 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 0 0 2 0 2 Estimated Lane Gfoup LTR LTR LTR L T R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 48 51 592 31 289 14 gg 1,025 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 263 390 1,264 984 1,800 1,500 653 6,201 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.18 0.13 0.47 0.03 0.16 0.01 i � HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 15 11 0 3 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 1,200 365 550 175 560 365 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 21.7 15.6 0.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 Level af Service,LOS C C A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 21.7 15.6 0.1 0.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups LTR=Left-Through-Right;L=LefT,T=Through;and R=Rlght i��oi_sis�n-n�e+eia�xwooa-aa_o�-s�mmary Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: south ssth nvenue a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Blackwood Road Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 6 286 3 0 1 414 21 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 7 311 3 0 1 450 23 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane Gfoup LTR LTR LTR L T R 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 20 7 320 1 450 23 26 820 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 348 715 1,100 1,164 1,800 1,500 1,063 6,627 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.06 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.25 0.02 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 5 0 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 1,200 365 550 175 560 365 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 16.0 10.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Level of Service,LOS C B A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 16.0 10.1 0.2 0.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS C B A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 18 0 4 0 9 0 45 0 6 328 13 0 36 475 24 Peak How Facto�(PHF) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 20 0 4 0 10 0 49 0 7 356 14 0 39 516 26 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 2 0 0 2 2 Estimated Lane Group LTR LTR LTR L T R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 24 59 377 39 516 26 83 1,040 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 227 496 1,037 1,175 1,800 1,500 723 6,238 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.11 0.12 0.36 0.03 0.29 0.02 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 8 10 0 3 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 1,200 365 550 175 560 365 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 22.7 13.2 0.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 Level of Service,LOS C 6 A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 22.7 13.2 0.2 0.6 Approach Level of Service,LOS C B A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 22 1 6 0 9 1 45 0 11 328 13 0 36 475 30 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 24 1 7 0 10 1 49 0 12 357 14 0 39 517 33 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 2 0 0 2 2 Estimated Lane Gfoup LTR LTR LTR L T R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 32 60 383 39 517 33 91 1,064 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 226 478 1,026 1,178 1,800 1,500 704 6,208 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.14 0.13 0.37 0.03 0.29 0.02 i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 13 10 0 3 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 1,200 365 550 175 560 365 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 23.5 13.6 0.4 8.2 0.0 0.0 Level of Service,LOS C B A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 23.5 13.6 0.4 0.5 Approach Level of Service,LOS C B A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: LTR=Left-Through-Right;L=LefT,T=Through;and R=Rlght i��oi_sis�n-n�e+eia�xwooa-aa_o�-s�mmary Page 2 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: eiackwood Roaa a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study South 23rd Avenue Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 27 0 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 30 0 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 0 0 5 5 7 Lane Gfoup LT TR LR 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 0 11 33 33 44 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,607 1,500 1,071 1,071 4,178 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.01 0.03 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0 0 3 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 645 1,180 125 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 10 2 27 0 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 11 2 30 0 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 0 0 5 5 7 Estimated Lane G�oup LT TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 3 15 33 33 51 Background Capacity,c(veh/h�) 1,602 1,569 996 996 7,467 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.01 0.03 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0 0 3 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 645 1,180 125 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 11 2 31 0 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 0 12 0 0 0 6 13 2 36 0 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 0 0 5 5 7 Estimated Lane Gfoup LT TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 12 18 38 38 68 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,597 1,594 979 979 7,470 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.01 0.01 0.04 i i� � � HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 0 0 3 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 645 1,180 125 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Level af Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Rlght;and LR=Left-Rlght i��oz_eia�xwooa-aaazaraa�e_oos�mmary Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: eiackwood Roaa a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study South 23rd Avenue Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 0 0 1 0 26 0 17 0 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 0 0 1 0 36 0 23 0 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 0 0 4 4 g Lane Gfoup LT TR LR 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 0 37 23 23 60 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,577 1,511 996 996 4,084 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.02 0.02 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0 0 3 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 645 1,180 125 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 0 4 1 3 26 0 18 0 Peak How Facto�(PHF) 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 0 5 1 4 36 0 25 0 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 0 0 4 4 g Estimated Lane Group LT TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 5 41 25 25 71 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,572 1,540 9S4 984 4,096 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.03 0.03 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0 0 3 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 645 1,180 125 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 0 8 1 10 31 0 21 0 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 0 11 1 13 41 0 28 0 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 0 0 4 4 g Estimated Lane Gfoup LT TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 11 56 28 28 95 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,552 1,579 960 960 4,091 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.01 0.04 0.03 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 0 0 3 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 645 1,180 125 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.9 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Rlght;and LR=Left-Rlght i��oz_eia�xwooa-aaazaraa�e_oos�mmary Page 2 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: eiackwood Roaa a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Parkway Avenue Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.44 0.44 0.44 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 2 2 6 6 10 Lane Gfoup LR TR LR 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 5 0 11 11 16 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,619 0 931 931 2,550 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.00 0.01 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 560 645 210 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.44 0.44 0.44 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 2 7 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 5 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 2 2 6 6 10 Estimated Lane G�oup LR TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 9 7 7 7 23 Background Capacity,c(veh/h�) 1,610 1,800 923 923 7,633 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.01 0.00 0.01 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 560 645 210 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 1.8 0.0 8.9 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 1.8 0.0 8.9 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 7 2 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.61 0.61 0.61 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 3 2 11 3 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 2 2 6 6 10 Estimated Lane Gfoup LR TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 7 8 16 16 31 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,608 1,680 969 969 7,557 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.00 0.02 i i � �� HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 560 645 210 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 1.8 0.0 8.8 Level af Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 1.8 0.0 8.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Rlght;and LR=Left-Rlght i��oa_eia�xwooa-aa+�,�waya�e_oos�mmary Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: eiackwood Roaa a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Parkway Avenue Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 3 2 4 4 g Lane Gfoup LR TR LR 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 6 0 0 0 6 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,431 0 914 914 2,345 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.00 0.00 i ii HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 560 645 210 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.5 0.0 8.9 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.5 0.0 0.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 2 4 0 3 0 0 0 1 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 0 1 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 3 2 4 4 g Estimated Lane Group LR TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 7 3 0 0 10 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,352 1,800 910 910 4,092 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.00 0.00 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 560 645 210 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 2.5 0.0 9.0 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 2.5 0.0 0.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 2 4 0 3 7 0 4 1 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 2 5 0 4 8 0 5 1 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 3 2 4 4 g Estimated Lane Gfoup LR TR LR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 7 12 5 5 24 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,371 1,590 964 964 3,925 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.01 0.01 0.00 i ii HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 560 645 210 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 2.6 0.0 8.8 Level of Service,LOS A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 2.6 0.0 8.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Rlght;and LR=Left-Rlght i��oa_eia�xwooa-aa+�,�waya�e_oos�mmary Page 2 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: eiackwood eoaa a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study South 27th Avenue Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 2 2 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 8 0 0 2 6 0 4 4 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 1 3 3 3 7 Lane Gfoup LT TR L R 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 8 8 4 0 4 20 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,617 1,575 987 1,077 2,064 5,256 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 i ii HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 545 565 115 315 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.7 8.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 2 1 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 4 4 0 4 6 0 4 2 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 1 3 3 3 7 Estimated Lane G�oup LT TR L R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) S 10 4 0 4 22 Background Capacity,c(veh/h�) 1,614 1,620 992 1,074 2,066 5,300 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 545 565 115 315 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.6 8.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.6 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.50 0.50 0.50 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 4 4 0 4 6 0 4 2 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 0 1 3 3 3 7 Estimated Lane Gfoup LT TR L R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 8 10 4 0 4 22 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,614 1,620 992 1,074 2,066 5,300 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 i i i � �� HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 545 565 115 315 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.6 8.4 Level af Service,LOS A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.6 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-RIghT,L=Left;and R=Rlght i��oa_eia�xwooa-aasz��n-n�e_o�-s�mmary Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: eiackwood eoaa a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study South 27th Avenue Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 7 4 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 0 3 4 4 12 Lane Gfoup LT TR L R 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 3 3 7 0 7 12 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,621 1,500 930 1,068 1,998 5,119 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 i ii HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 545 565 115 315 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 8.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 5 1 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 7 1 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 0 3 4 4 12 Estimated Lane Group LT TR L R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 3 5 7 0 7 15 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,617 1,650 966 1,064 2,030 5,297 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 545 565 115 315 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.8 8.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � Minor or Major Approach? Major Major Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 5 1 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.75 0.75 0.75 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 7 1 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 0 3 4 4 12 Estimated Lane Gfoup LT TR L R 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 3 5 7 0 7 15 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,617 1,650 966 1,064 2,030 5,297 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 i ii HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qgs(ft) 0 0 0 0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 545 565 115 315 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.8 8.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 3.6 0.0 8.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-RIghT,L=Left;and R=Rlght i��oa_eia�xwooa-aasz��n-n�e_o�-s�mmary Page 2 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: south z�th nvenue a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Kurk Drive Stop Controlletl Stop Controlletl Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajo�Approach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 33 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 17 0 0 5 8 17 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 36 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 19 0 0 5 9 19 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 5 6 2 7 15 Lane Group LTR LTR L TR L TR 2�24 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 37 8 0 19 5 27 45 96 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/h�) 934 1,033 1,597 1,800 1,492 1,596 1,967 8,452 Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 140 90 100 400 85 330 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 9.0 8.5 7.3 0.0 7.4 0.0 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 9.0 8.5 0.0 1.2 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 44 2 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 15 0 0 5 7 20 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 47 2 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 16 0 0 5 8 22 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 5 6 2 7 15 Estimated Lane Group LTR LTR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 49 8 0 16 5 29 57 108 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 935 1,036 1,594 1,800 1,495 1,578 1,971 8,438 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(R) 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 140 90 100 400 85 330 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 9.1 8.5 7.3 0.0 7.4 0.0 Level af Service,LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 9.1 8.5 0.0 1.2 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 44 2 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 15 0 0 5 7 20 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hi) 0 47 2 0 0 1 1 8 0 0 16 0 0 5 8 22 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 5 6 2 7 15 Estimated Lane Group LTR LTR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 50 10 0 16 5 29 59 110 Total Capacity,c(veh/hr) 931 1,006 1,594 1,800 1,495 1,575 1,937 8,404 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 140 90 100 400 85 330 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 9.1 8.6 7.3 0.0 7.4 0.0 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 9.1 8.6 0.0 12 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A U=U-Turns;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Turns I Lane Groups: L=Left;TR=Through-Right;and LTR=Left-Through-Rlght Average intersection delay and volum�to-capaclTy ratlo for minor approach(es)Is a weighted average provlded for reference purposes The HighwayCapaciryManual,7th Edifion:AGuide�orMWtimodalMobiliryAnalysis does not define overall average delay for the Intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: south z�th nvenue a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Kurk Drive Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 18 3 1 0 3 1 3 0 0 12 1 0 9 17 37 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 21 4 1 0 4 1 4 0 0 14 1 0 11 20 44 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 5 6 2 7 15 Lane Group LTR LTR L TR L TR 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 26 8 0 15 11 64 34 124 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 866 865 1,546 1,777 1,601 1,594 1,731 8,249 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 140 90 100 400 85 330 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 9.3 9.2 7.3 0.4 7.3 3.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 9.3 9.2 0.4 4.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 24 3 1 0 3 2 3 0 0 11 1 0 9 15 46 Peak How Facto�(PHF) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 26 3 1 0 3 2 3 0 0 12 1 0 10 16 49 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 5 6 2 7 15 Estimated Lane Group LTR LTR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 30 9 0 13 10 66 39 127 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 868 851 1,537 1,775 1,603 1,574 1,719 8,208 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 140 90 100 400 85 330 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 9.3 9.3 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 9.3 9.3 0.0 0.9 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 24 4 1 0 3 3 4 0 0 11 1 0 10 15 46 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 26 4 1 0 3 3 4 0 0 12 1 0 11 16 50 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 2 5 6 2 7 15 Estimated Lane Group LTR LTR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 31 11 0 13 11 66 42 132 Total CapeCity,C(veh/hf) 859 855 1,537 1,775 1,596 1,574 1,714 8,196 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qss(R) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Available Queue Storage,Sa(ft) 140 90 100 400 85 330 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 9.4 9.3 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 9.4 9.3 0.0 1.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: L=LefT,TR=Through-Right;and LTR=Left-Through-Rlght Average intersection delay and volume-to-capaclTy ra[io for minor approach(es)Is a weigh[etl average provltled for reference purposes.The Hlghway CapaclTy Manual,7th Etli[ion:A Guide for Multimodal MobIIITy Analysis does no[define overall average tlelay for[he in[ersec[ion as a whole for[wo-way or single approach s[op-controlled intersections. �� Traffic Operations Summary Inte�SeCtlon: West Graf Street& Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study South 27th Avenue Stop Controlletl Stop Controlletl Stop Controlletl Stop Controlletl Traffic Control � � � � MinororMajo�Approach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 23 0 0 19 6 15 0 0 18 42 0 12 10 4 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 1 29 0 0 24 8 19 0 0 23 54 0 15 13 5 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 2 6 1 7 14 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR 2�24 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 1 29 24 27 0 77 15 18 105 192 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/h�) 680 751 682 841 0 844 669 753 669 5,220 Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.02 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 7.6 2.7 2.8 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 570 315 315 100 320 150 425 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 8.0 7.7 8.2 7.1 7.9 7.4 8.2 7.6 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.9 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 31 0 0 20 8 20 0 0 21 48 0 16 11 5 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 1 39 0 0 25 10 25 0 0 27 61 0 20 14 6 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 9 4 11 2 13 26 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 1 39 25 35 0 87 20 20 122 229 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 673 743 673 831 561 834 662 747 1,223 5,724 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.03 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(R) 0.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 7.6 2.7 2.8 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 570 315 315 100 320 150 425 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 8.1 7.8 8.3 7.2 8.0 7.5 8.3 7.7 Level af Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.8 7.7 7.5 8.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 32 0 0 20 8 22 0 0 22 48 0 17 11 5 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hi) 0 1 40 0 0 25 10 28 0 0 28 61 0 22 14 6 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 9 4 11 2 13 26 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 1 40 25 38 0 S9 22 20 124 235 Total Capacity,c(veh/hr) 672 739 672 S29 560 S30 661 746 1,221 5,709 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.03 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 0.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 10.2 2.7 2.8 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 570 315 315 100 320 150 425 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 8.1 7.9 8.3 7.3 8.0 7.6 8.3 7.7 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.9 7.7 7.6 8.0 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A U=U-Turns;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Turns I Lane Groups: L=Left and TR=Through-Right Average intersection delay and volum�to-capaclTy ratlo for minor approach(es)Is a weighted average provlded for reference purposes The HighwayCapaciryManual,7th Edifion:AGuide�orMWtimodalMobiliryAnalysis does not define overall average delay for the Intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. m�os wc�aes�+sz��nn�e opss�mma�y Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Inte�SeCtlon: West Graf Street& Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study South 27th Avenue Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 5 2 1 41 13 12 0 1 18 19 0 7 26 4 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 1 5 2 1 44 14 13 0 1 19 20 0 7 28 4 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 3 6 6 6 12 21 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L T 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 1 7 45 27 1 39 7 32 76 160 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 687 782 687 811 566 815 676 772 1,242 5,796 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.04 i i. HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 3 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 150 570 315 315 100 320 150 425 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.9 7.4 8.3 7.3 9.1 7.3 8.1 8 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.5 7.9 7.3 7.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 7 2 1 45 17 16 0 1 21 21 0 9 29 5 Peak How Facto�(PHF) 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 1 7 2 1 48 18 17 0 1 22 22 0 10 31 5 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 6 11 10 11 21 38 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L T 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 1 10 49 35 1 45 10 36 86 186 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 682 76S 683 S06 562 S06 671 767 1,233 5,745 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.05 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 3 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 570 315 315 100 320 150 425 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 8.0 7.4 8.4 7.4 9.1 7.4 8.1 8 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.5 8.0 7.4 7.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 1 7 2 1 45 17 17 0 1 22 21 0 11 30 5 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 1 7 2 1 48 18 18 0 1 24 22 0 12 32 5 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 6 11 10 11 21 38 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L T 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 1 10 49 36 1 46 12 37 91 192 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 681 766 682 806 562 804 671 766 1,233 5,738 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.05 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qss(R) 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 5.1 2.6 5 Available Queue Storage,Sa(ft) 150 570 315 315 100 320 150 425 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 8.0 7.5 8.4 7.4 9.1 7.4 8.2 8 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(sec/veh) 7.6 8.0 7.4 7.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A A U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: L=Left and TR=Through-Right Average intersection delay and volume-to-capaclTy ra[io for minor approach(es)Is a weigh[etl average provltled for reference purposes.The Hlghway CapaclTy Manual,7th Etli[ion:A Guide for Multimodal MobIIITy Analysis does no[define overall average tlelay for[he in[ersec[ion as a whole for[wo-way or single approach s[op-controlled intersections. �� Traffic Operations Summary Inte�SeCtlon: West Graf Street& Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Enterprise Boulevard Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlletl Stop Controlletl Traffic Control � � MinororMajo�Approach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 10 87 3 0 12 30 30 0 6 13 30 1 24 10 10 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 12 102 4 0 14 35 35 0 7 15 35 1 28 12 12 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 6 3 5 5 10 19 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR 2�24 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 12 106 14 70 57 53 110 312 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/h�) 1,485 1,790 1,485 1,650 809 701 1,510 7,920 Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.08 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.3 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 440 175 315 I50 610 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 9.8 10.6 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A g Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.7 1.2 9.8 10.6 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A 6 Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 10 105 3 0 12 40 30 0 6 13 30 1 24 10 10 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 12 123 4 0 14 47 35 0 7 15 35 1 28 12 12 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 6 3 5 5 10 19 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 12 127 14 82 57 53 110 345 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,471 1,792 1,458 1,671 780 671 1,451 7,843 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.08 i i: HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(R) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 8.0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 440 175 315 150 610 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 7.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 10.0 10.8 Level af Service,LOS A A A A A B Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.6 1.1 10.0 10.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A B Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 10 105 5 0 19 40 30 0 8 16 51 1 24 11 10 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) O.S5 O.S5 O.S5 O.S5 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hi) 0 12 124 6 0 22 47 35 0 9 19 60 1 28 13 12 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 6 3 5 5 10 19 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 12 130 22 S3 89 54 143 390 Total Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,471 1,786 1,449 1,671 7S8 631 1,419 7,796 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.09 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 8.0 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 440 175 315 I50 610 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 10.1 11.2 Level of Service,LOS A A A A g g Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.6 1.6 10.1 112 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A B B U=U-Turns;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Turns I Lane Groups: L=Left;TR=Through-Right;and LTR=Left-Through-Rlght Average intersection delay and volum�to-capaclTy ratlo for minor approach(es)Is a weighted average provlded for reference purposes The HighwayCapaciryManual,7th Edifion:AGuide�orMWtimodalMobiliryAnalysis does not define overall average delay for the Intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. i��o�_wcrar-s�+E„ieror�s�ai�a_oos�mmary Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Inte�SeCtlon: West Graf Street& Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Enterprise Boulevard Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 5 35 1 0 20 79 20 0 2 10 12 0 28 19 12 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 5 36 1 0 20 81 20 0 2 10 12 0 29 19 12 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 7 7 4 11 25 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 5 37 20 101 24 60 85 248 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,409 1,792 1,567 1,739 805 744 1,549 8,056 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.08 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.7 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 150 440 175 315 150 610 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 9.6 10.3 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A B Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.9 1.2 9.6 10.3 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A B Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 5 41 1 0 20 92 20 0 2 10 12 0 28 19 12 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 5 42 1 0 20 94 20 0 2 10 12 0 29 19 12 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 7 7 4 11 25 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 5 43 20 114 24 60 85 267 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,393 1,793 1,559 1,746 791 725 1,516 8,007 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.08 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.7 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 150 440 175 315 150 610 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 7.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 9.7 10.4 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A g Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.8 1.1 9.7 10.4 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A 6 Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Controlled Stop Controlled Traffic Control � � MinororMajorApproach? Major Major Minor Minor Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 5 41 3 0 44 92 20 0 3 12 25 0 28 22 12 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 5 43 3 0 46 96 21 0 3 13 26 0 29 23 13 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 7 7 4 11 25 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 5 46 46 117 42 65 107 322 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 1,389 1,780 1,542 1,746 794 653 1,447 7,904 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.10 i i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qss(R) 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.2 7.7 Available Queue Storage,Sa(ft) 150 440 175 315 150 610 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 7.6 0.0 7.4 0.0 9.8 11.1 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A B Approach Delay(sec/veh) 0.8 2.1 9.8 11.1 Approach Level of Service,LOS A A A B U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: L=LefT,TR=Through-Right;and LTR=Left-Through-Rlght Average intersection delay and volume-to-capaclTy ra[io for minor approach(es)Is a weigh[etl average provltled for reference purposes.The Hlghway CapaclTy Manual,7th Etli[ion:A Guide for Multimodal MobIIITy Analysis does no[define overall average tlelay for[he in[ersec[ion as a whole for[wo-way or single approach s[op-controlled intersections. i��o�_wcrar-s�+E„ieror�s�ai�a_oos�mmary Page 2 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: south ssth nvenue a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study West Graf Street Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized Traffic Control MinororMajo�Approach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 84 83 14 0 34 46 235 0 13 413 81 0 185 195 41 Peak Hou�Facto�(PHF) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hr) 0 105 104 18 0 43 58 295 0 16 519 102 0 232 245 51 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 1 12 4 6 22 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR 2�24 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 105 122 43 353 16 620 232 296 623 1,788 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/h�) 558 1,044 839 1,064 1,083 2,338 647 2,415 3,505 9,988 Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.19 0.12 0.05 0.33 0.02 0.27 0.36 0.12 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 5.2 6.4 0.2 104.0 0.0 29.0 5.3 48.6 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 123 44 38 153 10 237 130 119 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 200 550 275 400 400 400 625 1,200 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 31.0 19.0 29.0 23.0 14.0 17.0 19.0 15.0 Level of Service,LOS C 6 C C 6 6 6 6 Approach Delay(sec/veh) 24.6 23.6 16.9 16.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C 6 6 Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized Traffic Control MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 103 112 20 0 47 67 250 0 20 476 92 0 204 226 49 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/h�) 0 129 141 25 0 59 84 314 0 25 598 116 0 256 284 62 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 1 16 6 8 30 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 129 166 59 398 25 713 256 345 752 2,092 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 342 638 310 646 444 1,326 365 1,277 1,936 5,348 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.38 0.26 0.19 0.62 0.06 0.54 0.70 0.27 i • HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 5.2 5.2 0.3 89.8 0.0 37.5 6.6 62.6 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(R) 136 37 43 165 11 296 170 150 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 200 550 275 400 400 400 625 1,200 AverageCantrolDelay(sec/veh) 33.0 18.0 32.0 23.0 18.0 23.0 32.0 20.0 Level af Service,LOS C B C C B C C B Approach Delay(sec/veh) 24.6 24.2 22.8 25.1 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C C C Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized Traffic Control MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 118 118 20 0 4S 69 250 0 20 4S0 94 0 204 227 54 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) O.SO O.SO O.SO O.SO Adjusted Volume,VA(veh/hi) 0 14S 148 25 0 60 S7 314 0 25 603 11S 0 256 285 68 Ped+gike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 1 16 6 8 30 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 14S 173 60 401 25 721 256 353 782 2,137 Total Capacity,c(veh/hr) 35S 666 313 674 427 1,286 349 1,240 2,011 5,313 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.41 0.26 0.19 0.59 0.06 0.56 0.73 0.26 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 7.9 9.4 0.5 112.3 0.0 42.5 7.5 1.4 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 187 66 60 206 17 332 200 174 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 200 550 275 400 400 400 625 1,200 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 33.0 18.0 33.0 22.0 19.0 24.0 37.0 21.0 Level of Service,LOS C 6 C C 6 C D C Approach Delay(sec/veh) 24.9 23.4 23.8 27.7 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C C C U=U-Turns;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Turns I Lane Groups: L=Left and TR=Through-Right Average intersection delay and volum�to-capaclTy ratlo for minor approach(es)Is a weighted average provlded for reference purposes The HighwayCapaciryManual,7th Edifion:AGuide�orMWtimodalMobiliryAnalysis does not define overall average delay for the Intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. m�os sas�nn�e+wc�aes�opss�mma�y Page 1 of 2 �� Traffic Operations Summary Intersection: south ssth nvenue a Meadow Bridge Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study West Graf Street Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized Traffic Control MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 64 44 12 0 48 81 102 0 16 303 27 0 135 439 67 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 66 45 12 0 49 83 105 0 16 312 28 0 139 451 69 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 5 1 9 4 6 19 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L T 2024 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 66 58 49 188 16 339 139 520 361 1,376 Existing Conditions Capacity,c(veh/hr) 332 457 306 486 448 1,626 538 1,534 1,581 5,727 Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.20 0.13 0.16 0.39 0.04 0.21 0.26 0.34 i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 4.4 1.3 0.6 50.4 0.0 11.4 1.0 238 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(k) 96 27 57 130 11 138 88 240 Available Queue Storage,So(ft) 200 550 275 400 400 400 625 1,200 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 26.0 19.0 28.0 22.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 15.0 Level of Service,LOS C B C C B B B B Approach Delay(sec/veh) 22.7 23.2 12.0 14.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C B B Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized Traffic Control MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 74 71 19 0 64 110 119 0 24 351 31 0 172 493 82 Peak How Facto�(PHF) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 76 73 20 0 66 113 122 0 25 361 32 0 177 507 84 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 1 12 5 8 25 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L T 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 76 93 66 236 25 393 177 591 470 1,656 Background Capacity,c(veh/hr) 310 452 28S 483 436 1,615 532 1,531 1,533 5,647 7reffic Volume-to-CapacityRatio,Vq/c 0.25 0.20 0.23 0.49 0.06 0.24 0.33 0.39 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(veh) 3.3 2.1 0.7 47.3 0.0 11.2 1.2 246 HCM 95%Queue Length,Qgs(k) 100 38 63 148 13 146 94 249 Available Queue Storage,SQ(ft) 200 550 275 400 400 400 625 1,200 AverageControlDelay�sec/veh) 27.0 20.0 29.0 23.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 15.0 Level of Service,LOS C 6 C C 6 6 6 6 Approach Delay(sec/veh) 23.2 24.3 11.9 14.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C 6 6 Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized Traffic Control MinororMajorApproach? Minor Minor Major Major Entry Volume,V(veh/hr) 0 83 75 19 0 66 117 119 0 24 354 32 0 172 497 99 Peak Hour Factor(PHF) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adjusted Volume,Vp(veh/hr) 0 86 78 20 0 68 121 123 0 25 366 33 0 178 514 102 Ped+Bike Volume,PBV(ped+bike/hr) 7 1 12 5 8 25 Estimated Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L T 2030 Lane Group Volume,V��(veh/hr) 86 97 68 244 25 399 178 616 495 1,713 7otal Capacity,c(veh/hr) 311 463 282 496 422 1,596 525 1,509 1,552 5,604 Traffic Volume�to�CapacityRatio,Vp/c 0.28 0.21 0.24 0.49 0.06 0.25 0.34 0.41 i HCM 95%Queue Length,Qss(veh) 4.0 2.2 0.8 50.4 0.0 11.9 1.2 4 HCM 95q Queue Length,Qss(R) 111 39 66 154 13 154 97 264 Available Queue Storage,Sa(ft) 200 550 275 400 400 400 625 1,200 AverageControlDelay(sec/veh) 28.0 20.0 30.0 23.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 16 Level of Service,LOS C B C C B B B B Approach Delay(sec/veh) 23.8 24.5 12.0 15.8 Approach Level of Service,LOS C C B B U=U-Tums;L=Left Turns;T=Through;R=Right Tums I Lane Groups: L=Left and TR=Through-Right Average intersection delay and volume-to-capaclTy ra[io for minor approach(es)Is a weigh[etl average provltled for reference purposes.The Hlghway CapaclTy Manual,7th Etli[ion:A Guide for Multimodal MobIIITy Analysis does no[define overall average tlelay for[he in[ersec[ion as a whole for[wo-way or single approach s[op-controlled intersections. � 1 1 ' 1 IN THIS SECTION: Capacity & Level-of-Service (LOS) Analyses • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 19th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman/MDT Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L T R Volume(veh/h) 18 2 7 3 0 8 3 427 6 4 216 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 33 0 0 0 29 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.10 6.83 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.49 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.50 4.30 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.56 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 31 13 3 5 Capacity,c(veh/h) 367 438 1317 1071 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 7.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 15.7 13.5 7.7 0.0 0.0 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) C B A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 15.7 13.5 0.1 0.1 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 421:57 PM Int-01 S-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd AM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 19th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman/MDT Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L T R Volume(veh/h) 14 0 4 0 0 6 6 286 3 1 414 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.10 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.27 4.10 4.27 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 336 2.20 235 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 20 7 7 1 Capacity,c(veh/h) 348 715 1100 1164 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 16.0 10.1 8.3 0.1 0.1 8.1 Level of Service(LOS) C B A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 16.0 10.1 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 424:11 PM Int-01 S-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd PM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&S 23rd Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 23rd Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 10 29 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 2 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.42 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.52 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 0 33 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1607 1005 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.7 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 8.7 Approach LOS A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:41:56 PM Int-02 Blackwood-Rd+S-23rd-Ave AM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&S 23rd Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 23rd Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.73 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 26 17 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 0 23 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1577 996 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 0.0 8.7 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 8.7 Approach LOS A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:4428 PM Int-02 Blackwood-Rd+S-23rd-Ave PM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&Parkway Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Parkway Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.44 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 2 0 0 0 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 57 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.77 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 3.81 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 5 9 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1619 931 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 7.2 8.9 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:00:14 PM I nt-03_B lackwood-Rd+Pa rkway-Ave_AM_2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&Parkway Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Parkway Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 5 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 33 0 67 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.43 6.40 6.87 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.50 3.50 3.90 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 6 2 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1431 914 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 0.0 8.9 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 7.5 8.9 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:02:04 PM I nt-03_Blackwood-Rd+Parkway-Ave_PM_2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.50 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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) 4 0 1 3 2 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 8 4 4 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1617 987 1077 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.7 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 7.2 8.5 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:32:10 PM Int-04 S-27th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd AM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.75 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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) 2 0 0 2 5 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 33 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.73 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.80 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 3 7 4 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1621 930 1068 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 7.2 8.7 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:32:57 PM Int-04 S-27th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd PM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Kurk Dr Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Kurk Drive Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume(veh/h) 33 1 0 1 0 6 0 17 0 5 8 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.12 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.27 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.52 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 330 2.20 235 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 37 8 0 5 Capacity,c(veh/h) 934 1033 1597 1492 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.0 8.5 73 7.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 9.0 8.5 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:43:37 PM Int-OS S-27th-Ave+Kurk-Dr AM 2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Kurk Dr Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Kurk Drive Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.85 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume(veh/h) 18 3 1 3 1 3 0 12 1 9 17 37 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 50 50 50 0 14 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.10 7.00 6.70 7.60 6.50 634 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.50 4.45 3.75 3.95 4.00 3.43 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 26 8 0 11 Capacity,c(veh/h) 866 865 1546 1601 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.3 9.2 73 73 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 9.3 9.2 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:4620 PM Int-OS S-27th-Ave+Kurk-Dr PM 2024-Ex.xtw � . � • • • � � • � General and Site Information Lanes Analyst T.Eastwood Agency/Co. ES Engineering,PLLC � � � '�'` -+- � � Date Performed 12/18/2024 Analysis Year 2024 � � Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 � � Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour � ~ Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditio... � � � � Intersection W Graf St&S 27th Ave � � Jurisdiction City of Bozeman � � East/West Street West Graf Street North/South Street South 27th Avenue � � _*_ � I � � .�r,. Peak Hour Factor 0.78 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 23 0 19 6 15 0 18 42 12 10 4 %Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 29 24 27 0 77 15 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 14 Initial Departure Headway,hd(s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization,x 0.001 0.026 0.022 0.024 0.000 0.068 0.014 0.016 Final Departure Headway,ha(s) 5.30 4.80 5.28 4.28 5.22 4.26 538 4.78 Final Degree of Utilization,x 0.002 0.039 0.036 0.032 0.000 0.091 0.023 0.024 Move-Up Time,m(s) 23 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time,t�(s) 3.00 2.50 2.98 1.98 2.92 1.96 3.08 2.48 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 29 24 27 0 77 15 18 Capacity(veh/h) 680 751 682 841 0 844 669 753 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 03 0.1 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 7.6 2.7 2.8 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.0 7.7 8.2 7.1 7.9 7.4 8.2 7.6 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.7 A 7.6 A 7.4 A 7.9 A Intersection Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.6 A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCST" AWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:04:16 PM Int-06 W-Graf-St+S-27th-Ave AM 2024-Ex.xaw � . � • • • � � • � General and Site Information Lanes Analyst T.Eastwood Agency/Co. ES Engineering,PLLC � � � '�'` -+- � � Date Performed 12/18/2024 Analysis Year 2024 � � Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 � � Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour � ~ Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditio... � � � � Intersection W Graf St&S 27th Ave � � Jurisdiction City of Bozeman � � East/West Street West Graf Street North/South Street South 27th Avenue � � _*_ � I � � .�r,. Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 5 2 42 13 12 1 18 19 7 26 4 %Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 7 45 27 1 39 7 32 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 4 3 5 67 3 6 2 Initial Departure Headway,hd(s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization,x 0.001 0.007 0.040 0.024 0.001 0.035 0.007 0.028 Final Departure Headway,ha(s) 5.24 4.61 5.24 4.44 636 4.42 532 4.66 Final Degree of Utilization,x 0.002 0.010 0.065 0.033 0.002 0.048 0.011 0.041 Move-Up Time,m(s) 23 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 23 2.3 2.3 Service Time,t�(s) 2.94 231 2.94 2.14 4.06 2.12 3.02 2.36 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 7 45 27 1 39 7 32 Capacity(veh/h) 687 782 687 811 566 815 676 772 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.9 7.4 83 73 9.1 7.3 8.1 7.6 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.4 A 7.9 A 7.4 A 7.7 A Intersection Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.7 A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCST" AWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:08:15 PM Int-06 W-Graf-St+S-27th-Ave PM 2024-Ex.xaw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection W Graf St&Enterprise Blvd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street West Graf Street Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Enterprise Boulevard Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.85 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume(veh/h) 10 87 3 12 30 30 6 13 30 25 10 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 7 0 0 0 0 3 13 14 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.17 4.10 7.10 6.50 6.20 7.13 6.63 634 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.26 2.20 3.50 4.00 330 3.53 4.12 3.43 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 12 14 58 53 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1485 1485 809 701 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.08 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.3 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.4 7.4 9.8 10.6 Level of Service(LOS) A A A B Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.7 1.2 9.8 10.6 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 628:32 PM Int-07_W-Graf-St+Enterprise-Blvd_AM_2024-Ex.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection W Graf St&Enterprise Blvd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street West Graf Street Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Enterprise Boulevard Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Existing Conditions Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume(veh/h) 5 35 1 20 79 20 2 10 12 28 19 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 14 0 17 5 3 0 3 14 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.24 4.10 7.27 6.55 6.23 7.10 6.53 634 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.33 2.20 3.65 4.05 333 3.50 4.03 3.43 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 5 20 24 60 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1409 1567 805 744 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.7 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 7.3 9.6 10.3 Level of Service(LOS) A A A B Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.9 1.2 9.6 103 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:30:43 PM I nt-07_W-G raf-St+Enterprise-Blvd_P M_2024-Ex.xtw HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Weekday, AM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street 2024 Existing Conditions � � � � ~ � � t � � # � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j "� �j '�r � �'� � �'F, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 84 83 14 34 46 235 13 413 81 185 195 41 Future Volume(veh/h) 84 83 14 34 46 235 13 413 81 185 195 41 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1945 1900 1767 1767 1976 1945 1737 1856 1885 1870 1811 1781 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 105 104 18 42 58 294 16 516 101 231 244 51 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 0 9 9 0 2 11 3 1 2 6 8 Cap,veh/h 240 494 86 414 88 445 462 975 190 454 1216 249 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.43 0.43 SatFlow,veh/h 1069 1572 272 1196 279 1414 1654 2929 570 1781 2830 580 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 105 0 122 42 0 352 16 310 307 231 146 149 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1069 0 1844 1196 0 1692 1654 1763 1736 1781 1721 1689 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.1 0.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 13.5 0.5 10.7 10.8 5.9 4.0 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.6 0.0 3.6 5.7 0.0 13.5 0.5 10.7 10.8 5.9 4.0 4.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 240 0 580 414 0 532 462 587 578 454 739 726 VIC Ratio(X) 0.44 0.00 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.66 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.20 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 402 0 860 595 0 789 552 1096 1080 830 1505 1478 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 31.2 0.0 18.9 21.0 0.0 22.3 15.9 20.3 20.3 13.4 13.4 13.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.9 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.0 5.4 0.2 4.0 4.0 2.1 1.4 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.4 0.0 19.1 21.1 0.0 23.7 16.0 21.0 21.1 14.3 13.5 13.5 LnGrp LOS C B C C B C C B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 227 394 633 526 Approach Delay,slveh 25.3 23.4 20.9 13.9 Approach LOS C C C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 13.2 31.2 30.7 5.9 38.5 30.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.2 7.1 4.5 6.2 i 7.1 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 24.5 46.7 35.0 5.5 65.7 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.9 12.8 22.6 2.5 6.1 � 15.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.9 2.4 1.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,slveh 19.9 HCM 7th LOS B Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Queues Weekday, AM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street 2024 Existing Conditions � � � ~ � � � t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 105 122 43 352 16 617 231 295 vlc Ratio 0.59 0.26 0.14 0.56 0.03 0.52 0.45 0.17 Control Delay(s/veh) 38.9 22.1 22.4 13.4 9.9 22.4 11.8 10.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(s/veh) 38.9 22.1 22.4 13.4 9.9 22.4 11.8 10.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 41 41 15 53 3 105 42 26 Queue Length 95th(ft) 86 78 37 105 12 186 98 69 Internal Link Dist(ft) 547 535 1975 1214 Turn Bay Length(ft) 175 200 400 625 Base Capacity(vph) 321 842 557 974 479 2172 728 2932 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.33 0.14 0.08 0.36 0.03 0.28 0.32 0.10 Intersection Summary Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Weekday, PM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street 2024 Existing Conditions � � � � ~ � � t � � # � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j "� �j '�r � �'� � �'F, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 64 44 12 48 81 102 16 303 27 135 439 67 Future Volume(veh/h) 64 44 12 48 81 102 16 303 27 135 439 67 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1945 1900 1796 1856 1976 1945 1900 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 66 45 12 49 84 105 16 312 28 139 453 69 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 0 7 3 0 2 0 6 2 2 2 3 Cap,veh/h 303 348 93 405 191 239 471 1278 114 593 1398 212 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1239 1438 383 1331 790 987 1810 3195 285 1781 3083 467 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 66 0 57 49 0 189 16 167 173 139 260 262 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1239 0 1821 1331 0 1777 1810 1721 1759 1781 1777 1772 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.0 5.6 0.3 4.0 4.1 2.7 5.8 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.6 0.0 1.5 3.4 0.0 5.6 0.3 4.0 4.1 2.7 5.8 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 303 0 441 405 0 430 471 688 704 593 806 804 VIC Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.13 0.12 0.00 0.44 0.03 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.32 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 517 0 755 635 0 736 653 958 980 791 1103 1101 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 23.7 0.0 18.5 19.9 0.0 20.1 10.7 12.5 12.5 9.2 10.9 10.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.8 1.9 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.1 0.0 18.7 20.0 0.0 20.8 10.7 12.6 12.6 9.4 11.2 11.2 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B B A B B Approach Vol,veh/h 123 238 356 661 Approach Delay,slveh 21.6 20.6 12.6 10.8 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 9.1 31.2 22.2 5.7 34.5 22.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.2 7.1 4.5 6.2 i 7.1 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.5 34.8 25.9 7.5 38.8 25.9 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 4.7 6.1 10.6 2.3 7.9 � 7.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.3 1.2 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,slveh 13.9 HCM 7th LOS B Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Queues Weekday, PM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street 2024 Existing Conditions � � � ~ � � � t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 57 49 189 16 340 139 522 vlc Ratio 0.23 0.14 0.16 0.37 0.03 0.27 0.22 0.28 Control Delay(s/veh) 23.3 18.0 22.0 16.0 6.5 14.8 7.2 9.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(s/veh) 23.3 18.0 22.0 16.0 6.5 14.8 7.2 9.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 22 14 16 39 2 45 22 47 Queue Length 95th(ft) 53 41 42 91 10 83 47 113 Internal Link Dist(ft) 547 535 1975 1214 Turn Bay Length(ft) 175 200 400 625 Base Capacity(vph) 481 690 517 800 555 1777 673 2033 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.19 0.21 0.26 Intersection Summary Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS 01/09/25 2024 Existing Conditions 21:37:15 Weekday, AM Peak Hour TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary (HCM 2016) Intersection Averages for Int # 8 - S 19th Ave & W Graf St V/C 0.412 (Critical V/C 0.662) Control Delay 19.7 Level of Service B Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **�** � � � � �♦ � m m � N th ♦ �__J � h �� Cmax= Gmax= 11.3" Gmax= 33.8" Gmax= 61.2" 124" Gavg= 3.5" Gavg= 33.8" Gavg= 30.0" Cavg= Y+Rc= 4.5" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 85" Gmax= 49.5" Gmax= 61.2" Gavg= 41.8" Gavg= 30.0" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 3.5" 33.8" 30.0" 1.8" 30.0" I Lane I Width/ I g/C I I I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I Group Lanes Max Avg SatFlo Capcty Volume v/c Delay S Model 1 SB Approach 20.1 C+ R+ T 23/2 0.272 0.397 3365 1333 289 0.217 17.1 *B 168 ft L 13/1 0.272 0.397 840 407 231 0.568 23.9 C+ 161 ft NB Approach 13.6 B+ R+ T 23/2 0.399 0.492 3511 1723 605 0.351 13.6 B+ 288 ft L 13/1 0.091 0.042 1703 508 16 0.032 12.8 *B+ 8 ft WB Approach 24.5 C+ R+ T 16/1 0.494 0.353 1594 563 314 0.558 22.8 C+ 200 ft L 12/1 0.494 0.353 1263 194 42 0.216 37.2 D 38 ft EB Approach 28.0 C R 13/1 0.028 0.353 1508 533 15 0.028 18.0 B 9 ft T+ L 11/1 0.494 0.353 875 373 209 0.561 28.7 *C 160 ft Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS 01/09/25 2024 Existing Conditions 21:45:33 Weekday, PM Peak Hour TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary (HCM 2016) Intersection Averages for Int # 8 - S 19th Ave & W Graf St V/C 0.334 (Critical V/C 0.416) Control Delay 15.9 Level of Service B Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **�** � � � � �♦ � m m � N th ♦ �__J � h �� Cmax= Gmax= 11.3" Gmax= 33.8" Gmax= 27.2" 90" Gavg= 3.9" Gavg= 33.7" Gavg= 21.2" Cavg= Y+Rc= 4.5" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 77" Gmax= 49.5" Gmax= 27.2" Gavg= 42.2" Gavg= 21.2" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 3.9" 33.8" 21.2" 2.2" 21.2" I Lane I Width/ I g/C I I I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I Group Lanes Max Avg SatFlo Capcty Volume v/c Delay S Model 1 SB Approach 14.8 B+ R+ T 23/2 0.375 0.438 3540 1559 623 0.400 14.8 *B+ 290 ft L 13/1 0.375 0.438 1016 541 169 0.312 14.6 B+ 83 ft NB Approach 9.0 A R+ T 23/2 0.550 0.547 3473 1910 409 0.214 8.9 A 142 ft L 13/1 0.125 0.051 1882 461 20 0.043 9.9 *A 7 ft WB Approach 25.1 C+ R+ T 16/1 0.302 0.275 1775 491 212 0.432 23.2 C+ 132 ft L 12/1 0.302 0.275 1313 247 60 0.243 31.7 C 46 ft EB Approach 25.6 C+ R 13/1 0.039 0.275 1540 426 12 0.028 20.2 C+ 7 ft T+ L 11/1 0.302 0.275 1014 355 135 0.380 26.0 *C+ 96 ft ' ''J� Traffic Signal Timing Evaluation �J ENf7MEfNfNG,MLC Analysis Case: Base Scenario Major Roadway: South 19th Avenue Design or Posted Speed Limit: 45 mph Minor Roadway: West Graf Street Design or Posted Speed Limit: 25 mph � . . - Major Atterlal High pcdcstrian volume areas (Speed Limit>40 mph) 10 to 15 seconds (e.g.,schools,central business districts, 10 to 15 seconds sports venues,etc.) Major Arterial 7 to 15 secontls Typical pedestrian volume and longer 7 to 10 secontls Through �Speetl Limit<_40 mph) cycle length Movements Typical pedestrian volume and shorter Minor Arterial 4 to 10 secontls cycle length 7 seconds Collector,Local,Driveway 2 to 10 secontls Negligible petlestrian volume 4 seconds Distance to center of road Left Turns Any 2 to 5 secontls Conditions where older pedestrians are tlivitled by present 3.0 feet er second Source:United States Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Administration,Signal Timing Manual (June 2008) South 19th Avenue: 25 sec 7 sec West Graf Street: 15 sec 7 sec - . - . � . � . PC=W�/VP where: PC= Pedestrian Clearance Time(sec) Wc= Width of Crossing-Curb to Curb(ft) �P= Pedestrian Walking Speed(ft/sec) Design Petlestrian Walking Speed,VP= 3.5 ft/sec South 19th Avenue West Graf Street Pedestrian Crossing of West Graf street Pedestrian Crossing of South 19th Avenue Width of Crossing-Curb to Curb,W�= 53 ft Witlth of Crossing-Curb to Curb,W�= 88 ft Calculated Pedestrian Calculated Pedestrian C/earance Interval, PC= 15.14 sec C/earance Interval, PC= 25.14 sec � . GMAX=(DHV�C)/(1200�n)+1 where: �Mnx-Maximum Green Interval Duration(sec) n- Number of Lanes Served by Subject Phase DHV- Design Hourly Volume Served by Subject Phase(veh/hr) C= Cycle Length(sec) South 19th Avenue Critical Movement West Graf Street Critical Movement DHV= 568 veh/hr C= 124 sec n= 2 DHV= 317 veh/hr C= 124 sec n= 1 Calculated Maximum Green Calculated M�imum Green Interva/Duration, G M,,� = 29.33 sec Interval Duration, G M,ix = 32.73 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 29.3 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 32.7 sec S-19th-Ave+W-Graf-St_Signal-Timing-Eval Page 1 of 2 ' ''J� Traffic Signal Timing Evaluation �J ENf7MEfNfNG,MLC Analysis Case: Base Scenario Major Roadway: South 19th Avenue Design or Posted Speed Limit: 45 mph Minor Roadway: West Graf Street Design or Posted Speed Limit: 25 mph . YAR=t+V/2d+(W+ L)/V where: YAR-Yellow+All-Red Interval(sec) t- Perception-Reaction Time(sec) = 1.0 sec V= Approach Speed(ft/sec) d= Deceleration Rate(ft/secz) = 10.0 ft/sec2 W= Width of Intersection(ft) L= Length of Vehicle(ft) = 25 ft South 19th Avenue Approaches West Graf Street Approaches V= 45 mph = 66.00 ft/sec W= 100 ft V= 25 mph = 36.67 ft/sec W= 130 ft Yellow+All-Red C/earance Interval, YAR= 6.19 sec Yellow+All-Red Clearance Interval, YAR= 7.06 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 6.2 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 7.1 sec � - . - - - AR=[(W+L)/V] - 1 where: AR= All-Retl Clearance Interval(sec)-Use maximum of250 seconds Equation accounts for perception-reaction time of drivers in next conflicting phase to be served. South 19th Avenue Approaches West Graf Street Approaches All-Red C/earance Interval,AR= 0.89 sec All-Red C/earance/nterval,AR= 2.50 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Secvnd= 0.9 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 2.5 sec . . Y=YAR-AR where: Y= Yellow Phase Change Interval(sec) South 19th Avenue Approaches West Graf Street Approaches Yellow Phase Change Interval, Y= 5.30 sec Yellow Phase Change Interval, Y= 4.56 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 5.3 sec Rounded to Nearest Tenth of a Second= 4.6 sec S-19th-Ave+W-Graf-St_Signal-Timing-Eval Page 2 of 2 � 1 1 ' 1 IN THIS SECTION: Capacity & Level-of-Service (LOS) Analyses • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 19th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman/MDT Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L T R Volume(veh/h) 21 2 7 10 0 34 3 489 15 27 248 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 33 0 2 0 9 0 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.10 6.83 6.20 7.12 6.50 6.29 4.10 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.50 4.30 3.30 3.52 4.00 338 2.20 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 35 51 3 31 Capacity,c(veh/h) 256 394 1273 984 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 12.7 10.6 0.0 2.6 Control Delay(s/veh) 21.2 15.5 7.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 Level of Service(LOS) C C A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 21.2 15.5 0.1 0.8 Approach LOS C C A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:3128 PM Int-01_S-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 19th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman/MDT Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L T R Volume(veh/h) 18 0 4 9 0 45 6 328 13 36 475 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.10 6.50 6.20 7.13 6.50 6.24 4.10 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.50 4.00 3.30 3.53 4.00 334 2.20 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 24 59 7 39 Capacity,c(veh/h) 227 496 1037 1178 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 7.5 10.3 0.0 2.6 Control Delay(s/veh) 22.7 13.2 8.5 0.1 0.1 8.2 Level of Service(LOS) C B A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 22.7 13.2 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:30:05 PM Int-01_S-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd_PM_2030-Bkgndxtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&S 23rd Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 23rd Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 0 3 3 10 29 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 2 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.42 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.52 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 0 33 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1602 996 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.7 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:47:43 PM I nt-02_Blackwood-Rd+5-23 rd-Ave_AM_2030-Bkg nd.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&S 23rd Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 23rd Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.73 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 0 4 3 26 18 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 0 25 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1572 984 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 0.0 8.8 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:49:56 PM I nt-02_Blackwood-Rd+S-23 rd-Ave_PM_2030-Bkg nd.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&Parkway Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Parkway Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.44 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 1 3 3 0 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 57 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.77 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 3.81 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 2 5 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1610 923 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.9 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 1.8 8.9 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:04:31 PM Int-03_Blackwood-Rd+Parkway-Ave_AM_2030-Bkgndxtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&Parkway Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Parkway Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 2 4 3 0 0 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 42 0 67 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.52 6.40 6.87 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.58 3.50 3.90 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 2 1 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1382 910 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 0.0 9.0 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 2.5 9.0 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:06:44 PM I nt-03_Blackwood-Rd+Pa rkway-Ave_PM_2030-Bkg nd.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.50 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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) 2 2 2 3 2 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 4 4 2 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1614 992 1074 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.6 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 3.6 8.5 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:33:57 PM I nt-04_S-27th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd_AM_2030-Bkg nd.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.75 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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) 1 1 2 2 5 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 17 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.57 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.65 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 7 1 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1617 966 1064 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.8 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 3.6 8.7 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:35:16 PM Int-04_S-27th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd_PM_2030-Bkgndxtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Kurk Dr Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Kurk Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume(veh/h) 44 2 0 1 0 6 0 15 0 5 7 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.12 6.52 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.27 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.52 4.02 3.30 3.50 4.00 330 2.20 235 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 49 8 0 5 Capacity,c(veh/h) 935 1036 1594 1495 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.1 8.5 73 7.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 9.1 8.5 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:49:04 PM Int-OS_5-27th-Ave+Kurk-Dr_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Kurk Dr Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Kurk Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume(veh/h) 24 3 1 3 2 3 0 11 1 9 15 46 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 1 50 50 50 2 14 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.11 7.00 6.70 7.60 6.52 634 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.51 4.45 3.75 3.95 4.02 3.43 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 33 9 0 10 Capacity,c(veh/h) 868 851 1537 1603 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.3 9.3 73 73 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 9.3 9.3 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:51:58 PM Int-OS_S-27th-Ave+Kurk-Dr_PM_2030-Bkgndxtw � . � • • • � � • � General and Site Information Lanes Analyst T.Eastwood Agency/Co. ES Engineering,PLLC � � � '�'` -+- � � Date Performed 12/18/2024 Analysis Year 2030 � � Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 � � Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour � ~ Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic � � � � Intersection W Graf St&S 27th Ave � � Jurisdiction City of Bozeman � � East/West Street West Graf Street North/South Street South 27th Avenue � � _*_ � I � � .�r,. Peak Hour Factor 0.79 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 31 0 20 8 20 0 21 48 16 11 5 %Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 39 25 35 0 87 20 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 2 8 14 Initial Departure Headway,hd(s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization,x 0.001 0.035 0.023 0.032 0.000 0.078 0.018 0.018 Final Departure Headway,ha(s) 5.35 4.85 535 433 5.27 432 5.44 4.82 Final Degree of Utilization,x 0.002 0.053 0.038 0.043 0.000 0.105 0.031 0.027 Move-Up Time,m(s) 23 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time,t�(s) 3.05 2.55 3.05 2.03 2.97 2.02 3.14 2.52 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 39 25 35 0 87 20 20 Capacity(veh/h) 673 743 673 831 561 834 662 747 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 03 0.1 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 7.6 2.7 2.8 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.1 7.8 83 7.2 8.0 7.5 83 7.7 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.8 A 7.7 A 7.5 A 8.0 A Intersection Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.7 A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCST" AWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:12:34 PM I nt-06_W-Graf-St+S-27th-Ave_AM_2030-Bkg nd.xaw � . � • • • � � • � General and Site Information Lanes Analyst T.Eastwood Agency/Co. ES Engineering,PLLC � � � '�'` -+- � � Date Performed 12/18/2024 Analysis Year 2030 � � Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 � � Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour � ~ Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic � � � � Intersection W Graf St&S 27th Ave � � Jurisdiction City of Bozeman � � East/West Street West Graf Street North/South Street South 27th Avenue � � _*_ � I � � .�r,. Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 7 2 46 17 16 1 21 21 9 29 5 %Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 10 49 35 1 45 10 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 4 3 5 67 3 6 2 Initial Departure Headway,hd(s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization,x 0.001 0.009 0.043 0.031 0.001 0.040 0.009 0.032 Final Departure Headway,ha(s) 5.28 4.69 5.27 4.46 6.40 4.47 536 4.69 Final Degree of Utilization,x 0.002 0.012 0.072 0.044 0.002 0.055 0.014 0.047 Move-Up Time,m(s) 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 23 2.3 2.3 Service Time,t�(s) 2.98 239 2.97 2.16 4.10 2.17 3.06 2.39 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 10 49 35 1 45 10 36 Capacity(veh/h) 682 768 683 806 562 806 671 767 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.0 7.4 8.4 7.4 9.1 7.4 8.1 7.6 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.5 A 8.0 A 7.5 A 7.7 A Intersection Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.8 A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCST" AWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:16:12 PM I nt-06_W-G raf-St+S-27th-Ave_PM_2030-Bkg nd.xaw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection W Graf St&Enterprise Blvd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street West Graf Street Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Enterprise Boulevard Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.85 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume(veh/h) 10 105 3 12 40 30 6 13 30 25 10 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 7 0 0 0 0 3 13 14 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.17 4.10 7.10 6.50 6.20 7.13 6.63 634 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.26 2.20 3.50 4.00 330 3.53 4.12 3.43 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 12 14 58 53 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1471 1458 780 671 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.08 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 5.0 8.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.5 10.0 10.8 Level of Service(LOS) A A A B Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.6 1.1 10.0 10.8 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:34:19 PM Int-07_W-Graf-St+Enterprise-Blvd_AM_2030-Bkgndxtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection W Graf St&Enterprise Blvd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street West Graf Street Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Enterprise Boulevard Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Background Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume(veh/h) 5 41 1 20 92 20 2 10 12 28 19 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 14 0 17 5 3 0 3 14 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.24 4.10 7.27 6.55 6.23 7.10 6.53 634 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.33 2.20 3.65 4.05 333 3.50 4.03 3.43 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 5 20 24 60 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1393 1559 791 725 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.7 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 7.3 9.7 10.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A B Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.8 1.1 9.7 10.4 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:37:14 PM I nt-07_W-G raf-St+Enterprise-Blvd_P M_2030-Bkg nd.xtw HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Weekday, AM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Background Traffic � � � � ~ � � t � � # � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j "� �j '�r � �'� � �'�, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 103 112 20 47 67 250 20 476 92 204 226 49 Future Volume(veh/h) 103 112 20 47 67 250 20 476 92 204 226 49 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1945 1885 1796 1781 1961 1945 1781 1856 1885 1856 1811 1781 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 129 140 25 59 84 312 25 595 115 255 282 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 7 8 1 2 8 3 1 3 6 8 Cap,veh/h 248 549 98 424 127 472 430 888 171 404 1134 241 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.40 0.40 SatFlow,veh/h 1028 1551 277 1160 359 1333 1697 2933 565 1767 2808 596 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 129 0 165 59 0 396 25 357 353 255 171 172 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1028 0 1828 1160 0 1692 1697 1763 1736 1767 1721 1684 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.0 0.0 5.3 3.1 0.0 16.3 0.8 14.6 14.7 7.6 5.4 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 26.3 0.0 5.3 8.4 0.0 16.3 0.8 14.6 14.7 7.6 5.4 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.79 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.35 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 248 0 647 424 0 599 430 534 526 404 695 680 VIC Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.25 0.14 0.00 0.66 0.06 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.25 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 320 0 775 505 0 717 499 997 982 703 1370 1340 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 33.6 0.0 18.9 21.9 0.0 22.5 18.8 25.1 25.2 16.9 16.3 16.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.0 6.6 0.3 5.8 5.7 2.8 2.0 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.2 0.0 19.1 22.1 0.0 24.2 18.9 26.6 26.7 18.6 16.5 16.5 LnGrp LOS D B C C B C C B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 294 455 735 598 Approach Delay,slveh 26.2 23.9 26.4 17.4 Approach LOS C C C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 15.0 31.2 36.3 6.7 39.5 36.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.2 7.1 4.5 6.2 i 7.1 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 24.5 46.7 35.0 5.5 65.7 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 9.6 16.7 28.3 2.8 7.6 � 18.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.9 2.9 1.0 0.0 1.3 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,slveh 23.2 HCM 7th LOS C Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Queues Weekday, AM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Background Traffic � � � ~ � � � t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 129 165 59 397 25 710 255 344 vlc Ratio 0.52 0.26 0.15 0.53 0.06 0.69 0.63 0.23 Control Delay(s/veh) 33.0 21.8 22.1 17.1 13.0 32.1 20.5 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(s/veh) 33.0 21.8 22.1 17.1 13.0 32.1 20.5 15.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 55 61 22 102 7 191 84 53 Queue Length 95th(ft) 113 110 50 177 17 229 114 84 Internal Link Dist(ft) 547 535 1975 1214 Turn Bay Length(ft) 175 200 400 625 Base Capacity(vph) 274 691 446 811 404 1799 576 2424 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.47 0.24 0.13 0.49 0.06 0.39 0.44 0.14 Intersection Summary Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Weekday, PM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Background Traffic � � � � ~ � � t � � # � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j "� �j '�r � �'� � �'�, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 74 71 19 64 110 119 24 351 31 172 493 82 Future Volume(veh/h) 74 71 19 64 110 119 24 351 31 172 493 82 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1945 1885 1811 1856 1961 1945 1885 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 76 73 20 66 113 123 25 362 32 177 508 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 6 2 2 2 3 Cap,veh/h 258 339 93 368 203 221 447 1258 111 581 1374 229 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1187 1416 388 1288 848 923 1795 3199 281 1781 3035 505 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 76 0 93 66 0 236 25 194 200 177 296 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1187 0 1804 1288 0 1771 1795 1721 1759 1781 1777 1763 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.8 0.0 2.6 2.8 0.0 7.4 0.5 4.9 5.0 3.5 7.0 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.3 0.0 2.6 5.4 0.0 7.4 0.5 4.9 5.0 3.5 7.0 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.29 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 258 0 431 368 0 424 447 677 692 581 805 798 VIC Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.22 0.18 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.37 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 458 0 735 585 0 722 609 942 963 747 1084 1076 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 26.2 0.0 19.4 21.6 0.0 21.2 10.9 13.2 13.2 9.2 11.4 11.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.2 1.6 1.7 1.1 2.2 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.8 0.0 19.6 21.8 0.0 22.4 10.9 13.4 13.4 9.5 11.7 11.7 LnGrp LOS C B C C B B B A B B Approach Vol,veh/h 169 302 419 770 Approach Delay,slveh 22.9 22.2 13.3 11.2 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.1 31.2 22.3 6.3 35.0 22.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.2 7.1 4.5 6.2 i 7.1 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.5 34.8 25.9 7.5 38.8 25.9 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.5 7.0 13.3 2.5 9.0 � 9.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.3 1.4 0.7 0.0 2.3 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,slveh 14.9 HCM 7th LOS B Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Queues Weekday, PM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Background Traffic � � � ~ � � � t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 76 93 66 236 25 394 177 593 vlc Ratio 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.05 0.31 0.29 0.34 Control Delay(s/veh) 25.4 20.0 23.5 20.1 6.6 15.7 7.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(s/veh) 25.4 20.0 23.5 20.1 6.6 15.7 7.6 11.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 26 26 22 60 4 55 28 55 Queue Length 95th(ft) 62 63 54 127 13 98 59 131 Internal Link Dist(ft) 547 535 1975 1214 Turn Bay Length(ft) 175 200 400 625 Base Capacity(vph) 424 680 495 787 520 1758 655 2006 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.30 0.05 0.22 0.27 0.30 Intersection Summary Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS 01/09/25 Estimated 2030 Background Traffic 22:10:46 Weekday, AM Peak Hour TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary (HCM 2016) Intersection Averages for Int # 8 - S 19th Ave & W Graf St V/C 0.478 (Critical V/C 0.772) Control Delay 25.4 Level of Service C+ Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **�** � � � � �♦ � m m � N th ♦ �__J � h �� Cmax= Gmax= 11.3" Gmax= 33.8" Gmax= 61.2" 124" Gavg= 5.5" Gavg= 33.8" Gavg= 39.6" Cavg= Y+Rc= 4.5" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 97" Gmax= 49.5" Gmax= 61.2" Gavg= 43.8" Gavg= 39.6" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 5.5" 33.8" 39.6" 3.8" 39.6" I Lane I Width/ I g/C I I I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I Group Lanes Max Avg SatFlo Capcty Volume v/c Delay S Model 1 SB Approach 32.4 C R+ T 23/2 0.272 0.348 3380 1179 328 0.278 22.9 *C+ 246 ft L 13/1 0.272 0.348 783 325 255 0.785 44.7 D 256 ft NB Approach 18.4 B R+ T 23/2 0.399 0.451 3524 1593 681 0.427 18.4 B 400 ft L 13/1 0.091 0.057 1738 458 25 0.055 16.6 *B 15 ft WB Approach 24.6 C+ R+ T 16/1 0.494 0.409 1687 693 358 0.517 21.8 C+ 227 ft L 12/1 0.494 0.409 1155 195 59 0.303 41.6 D 63 ft EB Approach 29.2 C R 13/1 0.028 0.409 1532 629 21 0.033 17.1 B 13 ft T+ L 11/1 0.494 0.409 927 435 269 0.618 30.1 *C 216 ft Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS 01/09/25 Estimated 2030 Background Traffic 22:18:10 Weekday, PM Peak Hour TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary (HCM 2016) Intersection Averages for Int # 8 - S 19th Ave & W Graf St V/C 0.409 (Critical V/C 0.545) Control Delay 18.7 Level of Service B Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **�** � � � � �♦ � m m � N th ♦ �__J � h �� Cmax= Gmax= 11.3" Gmax= 33.8" Gmax= 27.2" 90" Gavg= 5.6" Gavg= 33.7" Gavg= 24.9" Cavg= Y+Rc= 4.5" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 82" Gmax= 49.5" Gmax= 27.2" Gavg= 43.8" Gavg= 24.9" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 5.6" 33.8" 24.9" 3.8" 24.9" I Lane I Width/ I g/C I I I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I Group Lanes Max Avg SatFlo Capcty Volume v/c Delay S Model 1 SB Approach 18.2 B R+ T 23/2 0.375 0.412 3545 1458 692 0.474 18.0 *B 366 ft L 13/1 0.375 0.412 959 482 215 0.446 18.8 B 129 ft NB Approach 10.5 B+ R+ T 23/2 0.550 0.534 3482 1860 468 0.252 10.5 B+ 193 ft L 13/1 0.125 0.068 1865 425 30 0.071 11.5 *B+ 12 ft WB Approach 26.9 C+ R+ T 16/1 0.302 0.304 1781 541 267 0.494 23.9 C+ 168 ft L 12/1 0.302 0.304 1263 207 80 0.386 36.8 D 71 ft EB Approach 27.3 C+ R 13/1 0.039 0.304 1555 472 21 0.044 20.2 C+ 13 ft T+ L 11/1 0.302 0.304 971 361 181 0.501 28.1 *C 138 ft � 1 1 ' 1 IN THIS SECTION: Capacity & Level-of-Service (LOS) Analyses • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 19th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman/MDT Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L T R Volume(veh/h) 27 3 11 10 0 34 4 489 15 27 248 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 1 23 1 2 0 9 1 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.11 6.73 6.21 7.12 6.50 6.29 4.11 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.51 4.21 3.31 3.52 4.00 338 2.21 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 48 51 5 31 Capacity,c(veh/h) 263 390 1264 984 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 15.3 10.6 0.0 2.6 Control Delay(s/veh) 21.7 15.6 7.9 0.0 0.0 8.8 Level of Service(LOS) C C A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 21.7 15.6 0.1 0.8 Approach LOS C C A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:33:47 PM Int-01 S-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd AM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 19th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman/MDT Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L T R Volume(veh/h) 22 1 6 9 1 45 11 328 13 36 475 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.11 6.53 6.21 7.13 6.53 6.24 4.11 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.51 4.03 3.31 3.53 4.03 334 2.21 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 32 60 12 39 Capacity,c(veh/h) 226 478 1026 1178 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.12 0.01 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 12.6 10.3 0.0 2.6 Control Delay(s/veh) 23.5 13.6 8.6 0.1 0.1 8.2 Level of Service(LOS) C B A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 23.5 13.6 0.4 0.5 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:36:10 PM Int-01 S-19th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd PM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&S 23rd Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 23rd Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 0 10 5 11 33 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 3 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.43 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.53 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 0 38 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1597 979 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.04 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.6 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 0.0 8.8 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:52:55 PM Int-02 Blackwood-Rd+S-23rd-Ave AM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&S 23rd Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 23rd Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.75 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 0 8 10 31 21 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.41 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.51 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 0 28 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1552 960 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.03 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 0.0 8.9 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.0 8.9 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 4:54:59 PM Int-02 Blackwood-Rd+S-23rd-Ave PM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&Parkway Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Parkway Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.61 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 1 3 3 2 7 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 3 57 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.43 6.77 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.53 3.81 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 2 15 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1608 969 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.8 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 1.8 8.8 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:09:31 PM Int-03_Blackwood-Rd+Parkway-Ave_AM_2030-Total xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection Blackwood Rd&Parkway Ave Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Parkway Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.84 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume(veh/h) 2 4 3 7 4 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 42 3 67 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.52 6.43 6.87 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.58 3.53 3.90 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 2 6 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1371 964 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 0.0 8.8 Level of Service(LOS) A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 2.6 8.8 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:11:37 PM I nt-03_Blackwood-Rd+Pa rkway-Ave_P M_2030-TotaLxtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.50 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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) 2 2 2 3 2 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.50 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 4 4 2 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1614 992 1074 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.6 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 3.6 8.5 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:35:59 PM Int-04 S-27th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd AM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Blackwood Rd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Blackwood Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.75 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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) 1 1 2 2 5 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 17 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.10 6.57 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 3.5 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.20 3.65 330 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 7 1 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1617 966 1064 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.2 0.0 8.8 8.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 3.6 8.7 Approach LOS A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:36:48 PM Int-04 S-27th-Ave+Blackwood-Rd PM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Kurk Dr Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Kurk Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume(veh/h) 44 2 0 1 1 7 0 15 0 5 7 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.12 6.52 6.20 7.10 6.53 6.21 4.10 4.27 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.52 4.02 3.30 3.50 4.03 331 2.20 235 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 49 10 0 5 Capacity,c(veh/h) 931 1006 1594 1495 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.1 8.6 73 7.4 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 9.1 8.6 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:5422 PM Int-OS S-27th-Ave+Kurk-Dr AM 2030-Total.xtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection S 27th Ave&Kurk Dr Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street Kurk Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street South 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes d 1 � -1• 1• L ,; � � � � � +� � .� .i''i" t i' �" Major Street:North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume(veh/h) 24 4 1 3 3 4 0 11 1 10 15 46 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 1 38 50 50 2 11 0 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway(sec) 7.11 6.88 6.70 7.60 6.52 631 4.10 4.11 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 4.0 33 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 3.51 4.34 3.75 3.95 4.02 3.40 2.20 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 34 12 0 12 Capacity,c(veh/h) 859 855 1537 1596 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.4 9.3 73 73 Level of Service(LOS) A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh) 9.4 9.3 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 5:57:16 PM Int-OS S-27th-Ave+Kurk-Dr PM 2030-Total.xtw � . � • • • � � • � General and Site Information Lanes Analyst T.Eastwood Agency/Co. ES Engineering,PLLC � � � '�'` -+- � � Date Performed 12/18/2024 Analysis Year 2030 � � Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 � � Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour � ~ Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic � � � � Intersection W Graf St&S 27th Ave � � Jurisdiction City of Bozeman � � East/West Street West Graf Street North/South Street South 27th Avenue � � _*_ � I � � .�r,. Peak Hour Factor 0.79 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 32 0 20 8 22 0 22 48 17 11 5 %Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 41 25 38 0 89 22 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 1 1 0 2 8 14 Initial Departure Headway,hd(s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization,x 0.001 0.036 0.023 0.034 0.000 0.079 0.019 0.018 Final Departure Headway,ha(s) 5.36 4.87 536 434 5.28 434 5.45 4.83 Final Degree of Utilization,x 0.002 0.055 0.038 0.046 0.000 0.107 0.033 0.027 Move-Up Time,m(s) 23 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time,t�(s) 3.06 2.57 3.06 2.04 2.98 2.04 3.15 2.53 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 41 25 38 0 89 22 20 Capacity(veh/h) 672 739 672 829 560 830 661 746 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 10.2 2.7 2.8 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.1 7.9 83 73 8.0 7.6 83 7.7 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.9 A 7.7 A 7.6 A 8.0 A Intersection Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.7 A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCST" AWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:1923 PM Int-06 W-Graf-St+S-27th-Ave AM 2030 Total.xaw � . � • • • � � • � General and Site Information Lanes Analyst T.Eastwood Agency/Co. ES Engineering,PLLC � � � '�'` -+- � � Date Performed 12/18/2024 Analysis Year 2030 � � Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 � � Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour � ~ Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic � � � � Intersection W Graf St&S 27th Ave � � Jurisdiction City of Bozeman � � East/West Street West Graf Street North/South Street South 27th Avenue � � _*_ � I � � .�r,. Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 7 2 46 17 17 1 22 21 11 30 5 %Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 10 49 36 1 46 12 37 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 4 3 5 67 3 6 2 Initial Departure Headway,hd(s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization,x 0.001 0.009 0.043 0.032 0.001 0.041 0.010 0.033 Final Departure Headway,ha(s) 5.29 4.70 5.28 4.46 6.41 4.48 537 4.70 Final Degree of Utilization,x 0.002 0.013 0.072 0.045 0.002 0.057 0.017 0.049 Move-Up Time,m(s) 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 23 2.3 2.3 Service Time,t�(s) 2.99 2.40 2.98 2.16 4.11 2.18 3.07 2.40 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 1 10 49 36 1 46 12 37 Capacity(veh/h) 681 766 682 806 562 804 671 766 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 5.1 2.6 5.1 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.0 7.5 8.4 7.4 9.1 7.4 8.2 7.6 Level of Service,LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.5 A 8.0 A 7.5 A 7.8 A Intersection Delay(s/veh)�LOS 7.8 A Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCST" AWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 622:53 PM Int-06 W-Graf-St+S-27th-Ave PM 2030-Total.xaw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection W Graf St&Enterprise Blvd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street West Graf Street Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Enterprise Boulevard Time Analyzed Weekday,AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.85 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume(veh/h) 10 105 5 19 40 30 8 16 51 25 11 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 7 1 1 1 1 3 12 14 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.17 4.11 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.13 6.62 634 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.26 2.21 3.51 4.01 331 3.53 4.11 3.43 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 12 22 88 54 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1471 1449 788 631 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.09 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 0.0 10.1 8.0 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.5 10.1 11.2 Level of Service(LOS) A A B B Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.6 1.6 10.1 11.2 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:40:52 PM Int-07_W-Graf-St+Enterprise-Blvd_AM_2030-Totalxtw • • • • • � ' • • General Information Site Information Analyst T.Eastwood Intersection W Graf St&Enterprise Blvd Agency/Co. E5 Engineering,PLLC Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/18/2024 East/West Street West Graf Street Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Enterprise Boulevard Time Analyzed Weekday,PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period(hrs) 0.25 Project Description Meadow Bridge TIS�Total Traffic Lanes .i j i .}. 1. -, L � . � � � �. � �i •�•'i" t 1' �' Major StreeY.East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach 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 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume(veh/h) 5 41 3 44 92 20 3 12 25 28 22 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles(%) 14 2 12 5 3 0 3 14 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type�Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway(sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway(sec) 4.24 4.12 7.22 6.55 6.23 7.10 6.53 634 Base Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 33 Follow-Up Headway(sec) 2.33 2.22 3.61 4.05 333 3.50 4.03 3.43 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate,v(veh/h) 5 46 42 65 Capacity,c(veh/h) 1389 1542 794 653 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.10 95%Queue Length,Q95(veh) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 95%Queue Length,Q95(ft) 0.0 2.5 5.2 7.7 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 7.4 9.8 11.1 Level of Service(LOS) A A A B Approach Delay(s/veh) 0.8 2.1 9.8 11.1 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright �O 2025 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved. HCS�" TWSC Version 2025 Generated:1/9/2025 6:42:58 PM I nt-07_W-Graf-St+Enterprise-Blvd_PM_2030-Tota Lxtw HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Weekday, AM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Total Traffic � � � � ~ � � t � � # � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j "� �j '�r � �'� � �'�, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 118 118 20 48 69 250 20 480 94 204 227 54 Future Volume(veh/h) 118 118 20 48 69 250 20 480 94 204 227 54 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1945 1885 1796 1796 1961 1945 1781 1856 1885 1856 1811 1796 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 148 148 25 60 86 312 25 600 118 255 284 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 7 7 1 2 8 3 1 3 6 7 Cap,veh/h 262 575 97 435 134 487 418 863 169 392 1090 256 Arrive On Green 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.40 0.40 SatFlow,veh/h 1026 1566 265 1161 366 1327 1697 2923 573 1767 2749 645 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 148 0 173 60 0 398 25 361 357 255 176 176 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1026 0 1830 1161 0 1693 1697 1763 1734 1767 1721 1673 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.8 0.0 5.6 3.2 0.0 16.5 0.9 15.4 15.5 7.9 5.8 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 28.3 0.0 5.6 8.8 0.0 16.5 0.9 15.4 15.5 7.9 5.8 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.39 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 262 0 672 435 0 622 418 520 512 392 682 663 VIC Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.26 0.14 0.00 0.64 0.06 0.69 0.70 0.65 0.26 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 309 0 756 488 0 700 483 972 956 678 1334 1298 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 33.9 0.0 18.7 21.8 0.0 22.2 19.8 26.5 26.5 18.0 17.2 17.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.0 6.7 0.3 6.2 6.1 3.0 2.1 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 18.9 22.0 0.0 23.8 19.9 28.2 28.2 19.8 17.4 17.5 LnGrp LOS D B C C B C C B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 321 458 743 607 Approach Delay,slveh 26.7 23.6 27.9 18.4 Approach LOS C C C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 15.3 31.2 38.2 6.7 39.8 38.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.2 7.1 4.5 6.2 i 7.1 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 24.5 46.7 35.0 5.5 65.7 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 9.9 17.5 30.3 2.9 8.0 � 18.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.9 2.9 0.8 0.0 1.3 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,slveh 24.1 HCM 7th LOS C Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Queues Weekday, AM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Total Traffic � � � ~ � � � t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 148 173 60 399 25 718 255 352 vlc Ratio 0.55 0.26 0.14 0.51 0.06 0.72 0.66 0.24 Control Delay(s/veh) 34.1 21.9 22.3 17.3 12.9 33.7 22.4 15.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(s/veh) 34.1 21.9 22.3 17.3 12.9 33.7 22.4 15.7 Queue Length 50th(ft) 65 64 22 104 7 193 84 54 Queue Length 95th(ft) 132 118 52 183 17 232 114 84 Internal Link Dist(ft) 547 535 1975 1214 Turn Bay Length(ft) 175 200 400 625 Base Capacity(vph) 269 664 429 782 389 1724 549 2325 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.55 0.26 0.14 0.51 0.06 0.42 0.46 0.15 Intersection Summary Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Weekday, PM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Total Traffic � � � � ~ � � t � � # � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �j "� �j '�r � �'� � �'F, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 83 75 19 66 117 119 24 354 32 172 497 99 Future Volume(veh/h) 83 75 19 66 117 119 24 354 32 172 497 99 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1945 1885 1811 1856 1961 1945 1885 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 86 77 20 68 121 123 25 365 33 177 512 102 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 6 2 2 2 3 Cap,veh/h 252 343 89 365 211 214 438 1255 113 579 1332 264 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1178 1435 373 1283 881 896 1795 3192 287 1781 2941 583 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 86 0 97 68 0 244 25 196 202 177 308 306 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1178 0 1807 1283 0 1777 1795 1721 1758 1781 1777 1747 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.9 0.0 7.7 0.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 7.3 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.1 0.0 2.7 5.6 0.0 7.7 0.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 7.3 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 252 0 432 365 0 425 438 677 691 579 805 791 VIC Ratio(X) 0.34 0.00 0.22 0.19 0.00 0.57 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 451 0 736 581 0 724 599 942 962 745 1084 1066 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 26.7 0.0 19.4 21.7 0.0 21.3 10.9 13.2 13.2 9.2 11.5 11.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.3 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.0 3.2 0.2 1.6 1.7 1.1 2.3 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.5 0.0 19.7 21.9 0.0 22.6 11.0 13.4 13.5 9.5 11.8 11.8 LnGrp LOS C B C C B B B A B B Approach Vol,veh/h 183 312 423 791 Approach Delay,slveh 23.4 22.4 13.3 11.3 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.1 31.2 22.3 6.3 35.0 22.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.2 7.1 4.5 6.2 i 7.1 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.5 34.8 25.9 7.5 38.8 25.9 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.5 7.0 14.1 2.5 9.4 � 9.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.3 1.4 0.7 0.0 2.4 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,slveh 15.1 HCM 7th LOS B Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Queues Weekday, PM Peak Hour 3: South 19th Avenue & West Graf Street Estimated 2030 Total Traffic � � � ~ � � � t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow(vph) 86 97 68 244 25 398 177 614 vlc Ratio 0.35 0.23 0.23 0.49 0.05 0.31 0.29 0.35 Control Delay(s/veh) 26.7 20.2 23.8 21.1 6.6 15.8 7.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(s/veh) 26.7 20.2 23.8 21.1 6.6 15.8 7.6 11.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 29 27 23 65 4 56 28 57 Queue Length 95th(ft) 70 65 56 133 13 100 59 135 Internal Link Dist(ft) 547 535 1975 1214 Turn Bay Length(ft) 175 200 400 625 Base Capacity(vph) 410 680 492 787 513 1756 654 2000 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.31 0.05 0.23 0.27 0.31 Intersection Summary Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS Synchro 12 Report E5 Engineering, PLLC�T. Eastwood Page 1 Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS 01/09/25 Estimated 2030 Total Traffic 22:24:15 Weekday, AM Peak Hour TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary (HCM 2016) Intersection Averages for Int # 8 - S 19th Ave & W Graf St V/C 0.495 (Critical V/C 0.801) Control Delay 27.6 Level of Service C Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **�** � � � � �♦ � m m � N th ♦ �__J � h �� Cmax= Gmax= 11.3" Gmax= 33.8" Gmax= 61.2" 124" Gavg= 5.7" Gavg= 33.8" Gavg= 43.2" Cavg= Y+Rc= 4.5" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 100" Gmax= 49.5" Gmax= 61.2" Gavg= 43.9" Gavg= 43.2" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 5.7" 33.8" 43.2" 3.9" 43.2" I Lane I Width/ I g/C I I I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I Group Lanes Max Avg SatFlo Capcty Volume v/c Delay S Model 1 SB Approach 37.4 D+ R+ T 23/2 0.272 0.338 3375 1134 334 0.295 24.8 *C+ 263 ft L 13/1 0.272 0.338 778 305 255 0.836 54.0 D 286 ft NB Approach 20.2 C+ R+ T 23/2 0.399 0.439 3523 1540 687 0.446 20.3 C+ 431 ft L 13/1 0.091 0.057 1738 436 25 0.057 18.1 *B 16 ft WB Approach 24.3 C+ R+ T 16/1 0.494 0.432 1689 727 360 0.495 21.1 C+ 229 ft L 12/1 0.494 0.432 1148 191 60 0.315 43.3 D 67 ft EB Approach 30.1 C R 13/1 0.028 0.432 1532 660 21 0.032 16.5 B 13 ft T+ L 11/1 0.494 0.432 929 454 294 0.648 31.1 *C 241 ft Meadow Bridge Neighborhood TIS 01/09/25 Estimated 2030 Total Traffic 22:28:29 Weekday, PM Peak Hour TEAPAC[Ver 9.50.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary (HCM 2016) Intersection Averages for Int # 8 - S 19th Ave & W Graf St V/C 0.426 (Critical V/C 0.569) Control Delay 19.6 Level of Service B Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **�** � � � � �♦ � m m � N th ♦ �__J � h �� Cmax= Gmax= 11.3" Gmax= 33.8" Gmax= 27.2" 90" Gavg= 5.7" Gavg= 33.7" Gavg= 26.6" Cavg= Y+Rc= 4.5" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 84" Gmax= 49.5" Gmax= 27.2" Gavg= 43.9" Gavg= 26.6" Y+Rc= 6.2" Y+Rc= 7.1" 5.7" 33.8" 26.6" 3.9" 26.6" I Lane I Width/ I g/C I I I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I Group Lanes Max Avg SatFlo Capcty Volume v/c Delay S Model 1 SB Approach 19.3 B R+ T 23/2 0.375 0.402 3528 1421 713 0.502 19.2 *B 392 ft L 13/1 0.375 0.402 956 471 215 0.457 19.8 B 134 ft NB Approach 11.2 B+ R+ T 23/2 0.550 0.523 3481 1823 472 0.259 11.2 B+ 207 ft L 13/1 0.125 0.067 1865 405 30 0.074 12.3 *B+ 12 ft WB Approach 26.9 C+ R+ T 16/1 0.302 0.317 1785 567 276 0.487 23.6 C+ 174 ft L 12/1 0.302 0.317 1257 199 82 0.411 38.1 D 75 ft EB Approach 28.2 C R 13/1 0.039 0.317 1555 494 21 0.043 19.8 B 13 ft T+ L 11/1 0.302 0.317 955 369 198 0.537 29.1 *C 152 ft . �J .� � -� _/ ' ENGINEERING. PLLC 619 Milestone Drive• Belgrade,Montana 59714• (406)209-3960•