The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutImprovements Study, Part 2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Summary..................................................................1 Purpose of Report and Study Objectives.................................................................... 1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1 Intersection Location.........................................................................................................1 Types of Studies Undertaken............................................................................................1 Principal Findings...............................................................................................................2 Traffic Signal Alternative........................................................................................................2 Roundabout Alternative..........................................................................................................3 Comparison of Proposed Traffic Control Alternatives................................................4 Traffic Signal ..........................................................................................................................4 Roundabout.............................................................................................................................4 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................5 Traffic Signal Alternative........................................................................................................5 Roundabout Alternative..........................................................................................................5 Existing Conditions...............................................................................6 Roadway System.........................................................................................................6 Existing Relevant Transportation System Management Programs...........................8 Projected Traffic.............................................................................. 10 Method of Projection................................................................................................ 10 Weekday Traffic Projections......................................................................................11 Special Event Traffic Projections ............................................................................. 13 Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses................................................. 13 Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume............................................................. 14 Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume.............................................................. 15 Warrant #3: Peak Hour............................................................................................. 16 Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume ............................................................................... 17 Warrant #5: School Crossing.................................................................................... 17 Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System................................................................... 17 Warrant #7: Crash Experience ................................................................................. 17 Warrant #8: Roadway Network................................................................................ 19 Traffic Operations Analyses.......................................................... 19 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................. 19 Special Event Traffic Conditions.............................................................................. 21 Estimated 2025 Traffic..............................................................................................22 Improvement Analysis ....................................................................... 23 Improvements to Accommodate Existing Weekday Traffic....................................23 Improvements to Accommodate Existing Special Event Traffic ............................23 Improvements to Accommodate Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic.................24 ii Additional Improvements to Accommodate 2025 Weekday Traffic.............................26 Findings ................................................................................................ 27 Traffic Operations Analyses .....................................................................................27 Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses ...............................................................................27 Traffic Signal Alternative..........................................................................................27 Roundabout Alternative............................................................................................29 Comparison of Proposed Traffic Control Alternatives.............................................30 Traffic Signal......................................................................................................................30 Roundabout.......................................................................................................................30 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................. 31 Traffic Signal Alternative.......................................................................................... 31 Roundabout Alternative............................................................................................ 31 References .......................................................................................... 32 Appendix A – Traffic Volume Data Appendix B – Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses Appendix C – Capacity and Level of Service Analyses Existing Conditions Estimated 2025 Weekday Traffic Special Event Traffic Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic Appendix D – Mitigation Measures Special Event Traffic Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic Estimated 2025 Weekday Traffic Appendix E – Intersection Improvement Alternatives Appendix F – Present Worth Analysis iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Intersection Location and Existing Traffic Control.........................................................7 Figure 2 – Existing Intersection Conditions...........................................................................................8 Figure 3 – Current Daily Traffic Volumes ...............................................................................................9 Figure 4 – Design Hour Volumes for Special Event Traffic ............................................................11 Figure 5 – Estimated 2025 Weekday Design Hour Volumes...........................................................12 Figure 6 – Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic Design Hour Volumes....................................14 Figure 7 – Crash Experience by Crash Type ........................................................................................18 Figure 8 – Crash Experience by Time of Day ......................................................................................18 Figure 9 – Timing and Phasing Utilized in Signal Analyses............................................................20 Figure 10 – Signal Timing and Phasing for Post-Game Period ......................................................23 Figure 11 – Signal Timing and Phasing for 2025 Pre-Game Period Mitigation..........................25 Figure 12 – Signal Timing and Phasing for 2025 Post-Game Period Mitigation .......................25 Figure 13 – Signal Timing and Phasing for Estimated 2025 Weekday Traffic with EB & WB Left Turns ...................................................................................................26 Figure 14 – Conceptual Signalized Intersection Alternative ............................................................28 Figure 15 – Conceptual Roundabout Intersection Alternative ........................................................29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Warrant 1 Evaluation Summary..............................................................................................15 Table 2 – Warrant 2 Evaluation Summary.............................................................................................16 Table 3 – Warrant 3 Evaluation Summary.............................................................................................16 Table 4 – Existing Intersection Operations Summary.......................................................................21 Table 5 – Existing Special Event Intersection Operations Summary ...........................................21 Table 6 – Estimated 2025 Weekday Intersection Operations Summary.......................................22 Table 7 – Estimated 2025 Special Event Intersection Operations Summary..............................22 Table 8 – Estimated Existing Special Event Intersection Mitigation Measures Summary....24 Table 9 – Estimated 2025 Special Event Intersection Signal Timing Mitigation Summary ..24 Table 10 – Estimated 2025 Special Event Intersection Mitigation Measures Summary..........25 Table 11 – Estimated 2025 Weekday Intersection Mitigation Measures Summary...................26 Intersection Improvements Study For West College Street And South 11th Avenue 1 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Introduction and Summary Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The information presented in this report is intended to evaluate potential improvement alternatives for the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue in Bozeman, Montana. The information presented in this report is intended to evaluate the safety and operational aspects of the intersection under existing conditions as well as with future traffic growth. Study recommendations and conclusions are intended to provide guidance with respect to the short- and long-term function of the proposed alternatives. Executive Summary Intersection Location The study intersection is located in Bozeman, Montana at approximately the north quarter corner of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian of Montana. Generally, the intersection is bordered by a power substation to the northwest, a small retail business complex on the northeast corner, and portions of the Montana State University campus on the southeast and southwest corners. Types of Studies Undertaken Road tube traffic volume and intersection turning movement count data were collected on West College Street and South 11th Avenue by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. during March 2008 were utilized in preparation of this study. Using the data that was collected, traffic signal warrant criteria were evaluated for the intersection of the two roadways for existing conditions. Capacity and level of service analyses were performed for existing conditions during weekdays and special events at the intersection as well as for estimated 2025 traffic volumes. The intersection was evaluated under all-way stop, signalized, and roundabout control. 2 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Principal Findings Presently, the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue is operating below the desirable LOS C on the southbound approach during the AM peak hour and the eastbound, westbound, and northbound approaches during the PM peak hour. Based on the analyses included with this study, maintaining the existing all-way stop control at the study intersection does not meet the current traffic needs nor will it accommodate the estimated traffic growth in the area. As shown in the capacity and level-of-service summaries, the installation of either traffic signal control or a roundabout would greatly improve the delay experienced by drivers currently using this intersection. Additionally, each of these two alternatives would be able to accommodate anticipated traffic growth and effectively manage special event traffic now and in the future. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the study intersection and it was shown that the intersection would meet the warrant criteria as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition with Revision Number 1 Incorporated, dated November 2004 (MUTCD) for Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, Warrant #3: Peak Hour, and Warrant #8: Roadway Network.. Therefore, a traffic signal is a viable alternative. Traffic Signal Alternative Based on the included signalized intersection analyses for current and estimated 2025 traffic volumes, the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue would operate acceptably under signalized control. In order to accommodate special event traffic and to provide additional reserve capacity in the year 2025, it was determined that eastbound and westbound left turns should be included with signalization. Utilizing a cycle length of 60 seconds, the overall intersection is estimated to operate at a minimum of LOS C under special event traffic conditions in design year 2025, with no individual movement less than LOS C. For estimated 2025 weekday traffic volumes, the intersection is estimated to operate at LOS B on all approaches during peak hours. In order to provide maximum flexibility for future conditions and operations, an 8-phase signal controller should be installed in a “P”-sized cabinet. Video detection would be recommended for the signal installation. In addition, traffic flow on West College Street could be improved through coordination with the traffic signals at the intersections of North 19th Avenue and Main Street/Huffine Lane. 3 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue It is estimated that signalization of the intersection would require approximately 450 square feet (SF) of additional right-of-way and/or easement area for installation of the signal poles, pull-boxes, controller, and appurtenances. The additional area would primarily be needed on all but the southwest corners of the intersection. There is an estimated loss of 21 of the currently available parking spaces on West College Street with a traffic signal. The estimated initial cost of signalization, including engineering, construction, road surface improvements, right-of-way and/or easement acquisition, and construction contingency is $440,000. Considering the estimated costs for initial construction, operation and maintenance (supplied energy, pavement marking and roadway signage maintenance, traffic signal materials and hardware maintenance, and potential material replacement), fuel consumption due to driver delay, and associated with intersection crashes the estimated total present worth for a traffic signal over a 15 year timeframe is approximately $1,076,600. Roundabout Alternative The included roundabout intersection analyses for current and estimated 2025 traffic volumes indicate the intersection would operate acceptably under roundabout control. It is estimated that the northbound approach could operate at LOS D for exiting traffic following a special event in design year 2025. The eastbound and southbound approaches are estimated to operate at LOS A and the westbound approach at LOS C during this period. Additional traffic management measures consisting of a reduction in northbound traffic entering the intersection would allow the roundabout to function adequately during these periods. During the weekday, it is estimated that the roundabout would operate at a minimum of LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. It is estimated that a roundabout would require approximately 8,950 SF of additional right-of-way and/or easement area for installation. The required right-of-way and/or easement areas would again be needed on all but the southwest corners of the intersection. There is an estimated loss of 16 of the currently available parking spaces on either West College Street or South 11th Avenue with a roundabout. The estimated cost of installing the roundabout, including engineering, construction, landscaping, right-of-way and/or easement acquisition, and construction contingency is $700,000. The estimated costs for initial construction, operation and maintenance (supplied energy for lighting as well as pavement marking and roadway signage maintenance), fuel consumption due to driver delay, and associated with intersection crashes result in an estimated total present worth over a 15 year timeframe of approximately $916,300. 4 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Comparison of Proposed Traffic Control Alternatives Traffic Signal Advantages Disadvantages •••• Conventional form of traffic control – drivers are familiar with its operation. •••• Relatively simple to install. Minimal easements and/or right-of-way would be required (±450 SF) to accommodate signal poles, pull-boxes, controller, and appurtenances. •••• Operates at an acceptable level-of-service under weekday and special event traffic conditions now and in the future. •••• Signal timing plans can be modified to accommodate various traffic conditions for any special event or different times of day. •••• Potential for reduction in right angle crashes at the intersection. •••• Lower installation cost ($440K) as compared to roundabout. •••• Would require on-going operation (energy) costs as well as maintenance costs, which would include at a minimum signal indications (LED), video detectors, controller, lighting, pavement markings, signage, and road surfacing. •••• May create visual barrier to MSU campus entryway signage and landscape features. •••• May cause excessive delay to be experienced by drivers during off-peak periods and when fall and spring classes are not in session at MSU. •••• May cause an increase in the number of rear-end crashes, potentially resulting in injuries. •••• May increase delay experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists waiting to cross and does not reduce the distance they are required to cross. •••• Presents unique vehicle-bicyclist conflict points from left and right turning movements. •••• Greater total present worth as compared to roundabout. Roundabout Advantages Disadvantages •••• Provides continuous flow of traffic and acceptable level- of-service for a majority of traffic conditions now and in the future. •••• Does not cause excessive delay during off-peak periods or when fall and spring classes are not in session at MSU. •••• Improved intersection safety, resulting in fewer crashes, less damage, and minor injuries, if any. •••• Requires minimal operational costs (lighting) and maintenance costs would be limited (pavement markings, signage, and road surfacing as necessary). •••• Provides an opportunity to create a defining entryway feature to the MSU campus. •••• Splitter islands reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and bicyclists to single traffic lanes and provide refuge from moving traffic. •••• Lower total present worth as compared to traffic signal. •••• Local drivers are less familiar with its operation. •••• Will require more right-of-way and/or easement area (±8,950 SF) as compared to traffic signal. •••• Initial construction costs ($700K) would be higher than those for a traffic signal and would require relocation of the intersection and modification of storm water management features on the northeast corner of the intersection. •••• Requires drivers to yield to pedestrians at the entrances and exits to the roundabout. •••• Vision impaired pedestrians are disadvantaged due to the continuous flow of traffic. 5 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the analyses provided herein, either a traffic signal or roundabout would be effective and equally cost competitive at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue. However, over the long term a roundabout is slightly more cost effective than a traffic signal. Depending on the selected alternative, the recommended improvements would be as follows: Traffic Signal Alternative Left turn lanes should be provided on the eastbound and westbound approaches with a minimum storage distance of 50 feet, 8:1 tapers for the auxiliary turn lanes, and 15:1 tapers for necessary lane shifts. An 8-phase traffic signal controller housed in a Type P cabinet should be utilized. Video detection should be provided for each approach. The intersection should utilize a minimum 60 second cycle length under two-phase (actuated) operation. Accommodations must be made for pedestrians in accordance with the most recent Federal guidelines for accessible signals. Surface improvements are recommended to remove existing roadway rutting and deteriorated asphalt, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Asphalt repair may consist of milling and an overlay with reinforcement or full reconstruction. Signage and pavement markings shall be installed in accordance with the most recent edition of the MUTCD. Roundabout Alternative The center of the intersection should be relocated to the east and south of its current location to avoid potential conflicts with utilities on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection. A roundabout with an inscribed circle diameter of 130 feet is recommended to accommodate up to a minimum WB-50 design vehicle. A maximum design speed of 20 mph should be utilized in the design and layout of the approach and exit flares to and from the roundabout. Splitter islands should have a minimum width of six feet (6’) at pedestrian crossings to accommodate bicyclists. Signage and pavement markings shall be installed in accordance with the most recent edition of the MUTCD. 6 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Existing Conditions Roadway System West College Street is a minor arterial roadway as classified by the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update (GBATP) prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates in June 2001. It is also a Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) urban system route (U-1210). It currently has a single travel lane in each direction from its intersection with Huffine Lane easterly to South Black Avenue. West College Street has a right-of-way width of 60 feet east and west of South 11th Avenue. East and west of South 11th Avenue, West College Street has an approximate paved surface width of 38 feet and a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). West of South 11th Avenue, parking is allowed on the south side of the roadway. East of South 11th Avenue, parking is available on both sides of the roadway; however, there are a number of driveways on the north side limiting parking availability. West College Street serves as a primary commuter route to Montana State University. South 11th Avenue is classified as a collector roadway by the GBATP. It is also an MDT urban system route (U-1203). It has a single travel lane in each direction from Kagy Boulevard northerly to Durston Road. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway between West College Street and Kagy Boulevard. Presently, South 11th Avenue transitions to a half-width roadway south of Kagy Boulevard, but it is proposed to be widened to its full width with future land development in that area. North of West College Street, South 11th Avenue has a right-of-way width of 60 feet. South of the intersection, the right-of-way has been previously abandoned to West Lincoln Street, approximately, by resolution or ordinance through the City of Bozeman; however, the roadway must remain accessible to vehicular traffic. Montana State University retains ownership and maintenance of the roadway at this time. North of West College Street, South 11th Avenue has a paved surface width of approximately 34 feet. South of West College Street, the roadway has a paved surface width of approximately 40 feet. There is also a posted speed limit of 25 mph in this area. Limited parking is available north of West College Street on the east side of the roadway to West Alderson Street. North of West Alderson Street, parking is available on both sides of the roadway. 7 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue The intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue is currently an all-way stop controlled intersection. A single travel lane is available on each approach to the intersection to accommodate all available vehicular movements. Pedestrian crossings are also available on each approach to the intersection. There is a significant offset between the east and west legs of the intersection, created through the initial platting of the area. The study intersection, including the existing traffic control and lane configurations, is shown in Figure 1 below. Existing intersection conditions are shown in Figure 2. HUFFINE LN STUDYSTUDYSTUDYSTUDY INTERSECTIONINTERSECTIONINTERSECTIONINTERSECTION LEGEND EXISTING STOP SIGN EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION 11THAVES19THAVES19THAVENDURSTON RD KAGYBLVD 3RDAVESOAK ST 7THAVENFERGUSONAVEBABCOCK STW WILLSONAVESHIGHLANDBLVDMAIN ST COLLEGE STW ROUSEAVENFOWLERLN Figure 1 Intersection Location and Existing Traffic Control 8 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Figure 2 Existing Intersection Conditions Intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. on March 19, 2008. The counts found total entering volumes of 1,222 and 1,445 vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The peak hours were found to occur between 7:45 and 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m. No daily or monthly adjustments were made to the Morrison-Maierle, Inc. turning movement counts. Area count data is shown in Figure 3 on the following page and is provided in Appendix A. Existing Relevant Transportation System Management Programs In the fall of 2007, the Western Transportation Institute (WTI) coordinated with Montana State University (MSU), the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to implement a traffic management plan for special events occurring on the MSU campus. As noted in the September 7, 2007 news article “Plan unveiled for improving traffic flow after MSU football games” written by Evelyn Boswell of the MSU News Service, “The 9 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue interagency traffic management plan incorporates road closures, traffic signal timing, real time Dynamic Message Signs, radio announcements, traffic cops, closed-circuit television cameras, wireless communication relays, and a nerve center on the MSU campus.” On South 11th Avenue, drivers are directed north or south depending on where they parked in the lot that lies between the MSU Fieldhouse and the football stadium. At the intersection of South 11th Avenue and West College Street, northbound left turns are not allowed after the game. 19THAVESKAGY BLVD COLLEGE STW 11THAVES(XX)PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS XXXX AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR 36 121 20 85 196 56 (92) (223) (67) (49) (227) (47)45 244 37 (47) (126) (58) 98 192 31 (62) (276) (54)5,450 4,8503,5504,850MAIN ST WILLSONAVES Figure 3 Current Daily Traffic Volumes *Note: Average weekday traffic volumes shown are for vehicles entering the intersection only. 10 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue WTI researchers conducted manual turning movement counts at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue prior to the traffic management plan being in place during a game day on September 23, 2006. They also performed counts with the plan in place on both November 3 and 17, 2007. However, the November 3 counts were only done during the pre-game period and the November 17 counts were only done during the post-game period. The data from the WTI counts were analyzed to determine traffic volumes that were used in the capacity and level of service analyses (discussed later in this report) of traffic impacts associated with special events. Hourly flow rates for the different counts were determined, incorporating their peak hour factors, and then a weighted average was calculated to arrive at the design hour volumes (DHV’s). The DHV’s for special events are summarized in Figure 4 on the following page. The post-game peak volumes are without the traffic management plan in-place. When this is in-place, the northbound left turns are eliminated and the northbound volumes redistributed accordingly. Projected Traffic Method of Projection In order to more accurately evaluate the operational aspects of any proposed traffic control alternatives for the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue it is necessary to develop an estimate of traffic growth. Three primary means are typically used to estimate growth of non-site generated traffic, including the build-up method, the use of transportation plans or models, as well as the trends or growth rate method. The build-up method accounts for traffic growth due to approved or anticipated to be approved developments in the study area. Transportation plans or models typically provide estimates for traffic volumes for approximately 20 years into the future. The model volumes are usually provided for average weekday traffic, but can be converted to peak hour volumes. However, the conversions can produce results that do not accurately reflect real-world conditions. The trends or growth rate method is commonly used and involves evaluating the historic traffic growth rates within a study area. The underlying assumption with this method is that historic growth trends will remain approximately the same and continue in the future. This study utilizes a combination of the GBATP and the trends or growth rate methods for evaluating traffic growth. 11 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue 19THAVESKAGY BLVD COLLEGE STW 11THAVES(XX)POST-GAME PEAK TURNING MOVEMENTS LEGEND XX PRE-GAME PEAK 125 175 60 105 245 35 (175)(325) (95) (50) (285) (50)55 255 70 (65) (95) (65) 150 280 45 (45) (255) (50) MAIN ST WILLSONAVES Figure 4 Design Hour Volumes for Special Event Traffic Weekday Traffic Projections The area around the study intersection is fully developed; however, there may be additional development south of Kagy Boulevard that will cause an increase in traffic volumes at the study intersection. In addition, increased enrollment at MSU will lead to traffic growth at the intersection. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes as provided in the GBATP for the years 1998, 2010, and 2020 were evaluated to determine average annual growth rates between these periods at the study intersection. Enrollment trends at MSU were evaluated from the fall of 1999 to the spring of 2008 12 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue to determine an approximate average annual growth rate. Using a weighted average of the transportation plan and enrollment annual growth rates, a rate of 1.63% was used in estimating DHV’s for the year 2025 at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue. The estimated volumes, which were calculated from the existing service flow rates during the AM and PM peak hours, are summarized in Figure 5 below. 19THAVESKAGY BLVD COLLEGE STW 11THAVES(XX)PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS XXXX AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR 65 155 30 125 270 45 (110)(280) (85) (45) (350) (40)50 450 30 (50) (180) (85) 210 200 40 (75) (365) (85)7,200 6,4004,7006,400MAIN ST WILLSONAVES Figure 5 Estimated 2025 Weekday Design Hour Volumes *Note: Average weekday traffic volumes shown are for vehicles entering the intersection only. 13 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Special Event Traffic Projections For this study, it was assumed that special event traffic growth would most likely be correlated to increased seating capacity at Bobcat Stadium. Furthermore, it was assumed that the stadium would have a seating capacity of up to 25,000 persons by the year 2025. Comparing this estimate to the existing capacity of 15,000 persons, an annual growth rate of approximately 3.17% was determined. The distribution of estimated special event traffic growth was determined from the ADT’s on the primary travel routes to the football stadium. These routes included South 19th Avenue both north and south of Kagy Boulevard, South Willson Avenue, South 3rd Avenue, and South 11th Avenue. Assuming that the special event traffic growth would occur directly proportional to the ADT’s of the included travel routes, an annual growth rate of 1.11% was determined for special event traffic at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue. Although not all traffic at the intersection during special events is directly attributable to the event, all the volumes at the intersection were increased to add a level of conservatism to the analyses. The estimated DHV’s for 2025 special event traffic are summarized in Figure 6 on the following page. Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed in accordance with the criteria as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition with Revision Number 1 Incorporated, dated November 2004 (MUTCD) and the Montana Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Manual. The MUTCD defines eight warrants establishing the minimum criteria for installation of a traffic control signal. The eight signal warrants as provided in the MUTCD are as follows: Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant #3: Peak Hour Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume Warrant #5: School Crossing Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Warrant #7: Crash Experience Warrant #8: Roadway Network 14 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue 19THAVESKAGY BLVD COLLEGE STW 11THAVES(XX)POST-GAME PEAK TURNING MOVEMENTS LEGEND XX PRE-GAME PEAK 155 215 75 130 300 45 (215)(400)(115) (60) (350) (60)70 310 85 (80) (115) (80) 185 340 55 (55) (310) (60) MAIN ST WILLSONAVES Figure 6 Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic Design Hour Volumes Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 1 is intended to be used at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal or where traffic on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. (MUTCD, 2003 Edition) Condition A of the warrant applies in the case of 15 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue large intersecting volumes. Condition B applies in the case of excessive delay or conflict on the minor street. If other measures to address traffic control at the intersection have been adequately attempted and have failed to resolve the traffic control issues, Conditions A and B may be combined and evaluated against the signal warrant criteria. If one of the conditions is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 are satisfied. As stated previously, the posted speed limit on both West College Street and South 11th Avenue is 25 mph. Because this speed is not greater than 40 mph, the 70% columns of the signal warrant criteria do not apply. The combination of Conditions A and B for Warrant 1 was not evaluated as there has not been an adequate trial of alternatives to resolve the traffic control issues. Table 1 Warrant 1 Evaluation Summary Warrant Conditions Existing Conditions Warrant Minimums Condition A Eighth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) – Major Street 677 500 Eighth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) – Minor Street 314 150 Total Number of Qualifying Hours 14 Condition B Eighth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) – Major Street 677 750 Eighth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) – Minor Street 314 75 Total Number of Qualifying Hours 1 Warrant 1 Satisfied Yes Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2 is intended to be used at locations where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. (MUTCD, 2003 Edition) Again, the signal warrant criteria were evaluated based on a 100% factor due to the posted speed limits of 25 mph. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 2 on the following page. 16 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Table 2 Warrant 2 Evaluation Summary Warrant Conditions Existing Conditions Warrant Minimums Fourth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) – Major Street 757 Fourth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) – Minor Street 317 147 Total Number of Qualifying Hours 12 Warrant 2 Satisfied Yes Warrant #3: Peak Hour As provided in the MUTCD, Warrant 3 is intended to be used at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one (1) hour of an average day, the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Additionally, this signal warrant is only applied in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high- occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Because the MSU campus both attracts and discharges a large number of vehicles over a short time, Warrant 3 may be applied in this case. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3 Warrant 3 Evaluation Summary Warrant Conditions Existing Conditions Warrant Minimums Condition A Peak Hour Stopped Time Delay on Higher Volume Minor Street Approach (VEH-HRS) 3.32 4 Total Peak Hour Vehicles on Higher Volume Minor Street Approach (VPH) 355 100 Total Peak Hour Entering Volume at Intersection (VPH) 1,317 650 Condition B Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Entering Intersection on Major Street (VPH) 702 Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Entering Intersection on Max. Minor Approach (VPH) 355 323 Total Number of Qualifying Hours 5 Warrant 3 Satisfied Yes 17 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume Warrant 4 is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. (MUTCD, 2003 Edition) The pedestrian volumes observed crossing the roadways during the AM and PM peak hours were far below the warrant minimum volumes. Based on these observations, it was estimated that this warrant would not be satisfied for existing or any other analysis conditions included in this study. Warrant #5: School Crossing Warrant 5 is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. (MUTCD, 2003 Edition) A school crossing does not currently exist and is not proposed at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue. Additionally, the existing all-way stop control at the intersection creates opportunities for pedestrians to cross either of the two roadways. Therefore, Warrant 5 was not evaluated as a part of this study. Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Warrant 6 is intended for application when a traffic control signal is needed to promote the progressive movement of traffic and maintain proper platooning of vehicles in a coordinated signal system. This warrant should not be applied where the resulting spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet. The existing traffic signals on West College Street are not coordinated and there are no immediate plans for coordination of those signals. Therefore, Warrant 6 was not evaluated as a part of this study. Warrant #7: Crash Experience The MUTCD states, “Warrant 7 is intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic signal.” It also requires that an adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency. During the most recent 12-month period, there have only been two crashes of a type susceptible to correction by a traffic signal, which is less than the warrant minimum of five. Therefore the criteria for Warrant 7 would not be satisfied. 18 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Figures 7 and 8 summarize the crash experience by type of crash and time of day, respectively, at the study intersection from 2005 through 2007. A majority of crashes experienced at this intersection are of the rear end type. The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection could potentially cause an increase in these types of crashes. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Total Number of CrashesRear End Right Angle Fixed Object Crash Type Crash Experience By Type of Crash (2005 - 2007) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Number of Crashes8:00 9:00 12:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 18:00 20:00 Hour Beginning Crash Experience By Time of Day (2005 - 2007) *Note: Hours with no data have been omitted from the graph. Figure 7 Crash Experience by Crash Type Figure 8 Crash Experience by Time of Day 19 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Warrant #8: Roadway Network Warrant 8 is intended for application when a traffic control signal is needed to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. This warrant is applied where two or more major routes intersect each other. As stated in the MUTCD, a major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or it includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or it appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Based on these criteria, West College Street and South 11th Avenue would currently qualify as major routes. The existing total peak hour entering volume in vehicles per hour (vph) exceeds the warrant minimum of 1,000 vph. Additionally, the five year projected traffic volumes also meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday. Therefore, Warrant 8 was satisfied for the study intersection. Traffic Operations Analyses Three alternatives for traffic control have been evaluated at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue as a part of this study. These include: •••• All-Way Stop Control •••• Traffic Signal •••• Roundabout Each of these alternatives were evaluated under existing conditions and special event traffic as well as estimated traffic volumes for design years 2020 and 2025. Existing Conditions All-way stop control capacity and level of service analyses were performed for existing conditions at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue using Highway Capacity Software Plus, Version 5.21 (HCS+) developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. The stop controlled intersection analyses are based on Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual 20 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue 2000 (HCM 2000) published by the Transportation Research Board. Level of service (LOS) is the performance measure used to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as traffic interruptions and delay, roadway and intersection geometry, and traffic volume. Operating conditions are designated as “LOS A” through “LOS F”, which represents the most favorable to the least favorable operating conditions. Signalized intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using HCS+ for the study intersection using optimized signal timing and phasing for the estimated traffic control signal operation. Signalized analyses are based on the procedures found in Chapter 16 of HCM 2000. The timing and phasing utilized in the analyses is provided in Figure 9 below. Figure 9 Timing and Phasing Utilized in Signal Analyses Roundabout capacity and level of service analyses were performed using procedures found in Chapter 17 of the HCM as well as Roundabouts: An Informational Guide developed by the Federal Highway Administration dated June 2000. An update to this guide is currently in progress under the direction of the National Highway Cooperative Research Program. The results of the unsignalized and signalized capacity analyses for existing conditions are summarized in Table 4 on the following page. 21 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Table 4 Existing Intersection Operations Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic Control Alternative Approach Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB C 20.59 0.69 D 33.74 0.84 WB C 21.87 0.70 D 25.35 0.75 NB C 15.08 0.47 D 29.34 0.80 All-Way Stop SB D 27.36 0.79 C 19.27 0.61 EB B 11.8 0.53 B 13.4 0.62 WB B 12.3 0.56 B 11.1 0.48 NB B 12.9 0.30 B 15.7 0.57 Traffic Signal SB B 17.1 0.64 B 14.1 0.44 EB A 8.1 0.43 A 6.4 0.42 WB A 5.5 0.34 A 6.8 0.38 NB A 4.5 0.19 A 7.8 0.44 Roundabout SB A 7.7 0.46 A 6.0 0.28 Special Event Traffic Conditions It was also necessary to evaluate intersection operations based on special event traffic. These analyses were performed using the three intersection traffic control alternatives discussed previously. The resulting levels of service for special event traffic conditions are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5 Existing Special Event Intersection Operations Summary Pre-Game Peak Hour Post-Game Peak Hour w/o Traffic Management Plan Post-Game Peak Hour w/ Traffic Management Plan1 Traffic Control Alternative Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB F 291.59 1.00 E 41.31 0.83 E 41.31 0.83 WB F 131.44 1.00 F 52.91 0.89 F 52.91 0.89 NB F 97.19 0.98 F 321.29 1.00 F 311.77 1.00 All-Way Stop SB F 120.21 1.00 C 22.59 0.60 C 22.59 0.60 EB B 17.0 0.74 B 11.9 0.54 B 11.9 0.54 WB B 14.8 0.66 B 12.5 0.58 B 12.5 0.58 NB B 18.9 0.68 E 56.1 1.00 C 24.8 0.83 Traffic Signal SB B 18.7 0.68 B 14.6 0.48 C 20.7 0.68 EB B 10.8 0.59 A 5.8 0.36 A 5.8 0.36 WB A 7.5 0.45 B 10.5 0.53 B 10.4 0.53 NB A 7.7 0.44 B 13.7 0.70 B 13.7 0.70 Roundabout SB A 9.1 0.49 A 6.9 0.30 A 5.6 0.26 1With the traffic management plan in-place, a police officer is currently stationed at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue to assist in directing traffic. Therefore, the estimated delays and level-of-service shown for the All-Way Stop control may not be a true indication of the actual traffic operations during this period. 22 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Estimated 2025 Traffic The estimated 2025 traffic analyses include the projected traffic volumes as stated previously. The resulting levels of service for estimated traffic during weekday and special event traffic conditions for these design years are summarized in Tables 6 and 7 that follow. Table 6 Estimated 2025 Weekday Intersection Operations Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic Control Alternative Approach Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB F 100.58 1.00 F 209.79 1.00 WB F 105.43 1.00 F 121.17 1.00 NB D 31.65 0.68 F 158.23 1.00 All-Way Stop SB F 186.63 1.00 F 50.50 0.86 EB B 16.5 0.72 C 23.9 0.84 WB B 19.8 0.78 B 14.1 0.65 NB B 14.1 0.44 C 22.8 0.78 Traffic Signal SB C 29.2 0.86 B 17.9 0.65 EB B 14.6 0.65 A 9.7 0.59 WB A 7.3 0.47 B 10.5 0.56 NB A 5.4 0.27 B 13.6 0.65 Roundabout SB B 13.8 0.68 A 8.2 0.42 Table 7 Estimated 2025 Special Event Intersection Operations Summary Pre-Game Peak Hour Post-Game Peak Hour w/o Traffic Management Plan Post-Game Peak Hour w/ Traffic Management Plan1 Traffic Control Alternative Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB F 537.63 1.00 F 143.84 1.00 F 143.84 1.00 WB F 317.73 1.00 F 224.84 1.00 F 224.84 1.00 NB F 248.26 1.00 F 791.99 1.00 F 768.61 1.00 All-Way Stop SB F 289.30 1.00 E 37.86 0.74 E 37.86 0.74 EB C 32.3 0.91 B 14.8 0.67 B 14.8 0.67 WB C 33.0 0.90 B 16.1 0.71 B 16.1 0.71 NB D 46.3 0.95 F 158.7 1.28 E 55.1 1.01 Traffic Signal SB C 30.8 0.87 B 18.0 0.64 F 114.5 1.13 EB C 20.3 0.79 A 7.0 0.46 A 7.0 0.46 WB B 10.7 0.59 C 19.0 0.73 C 18.4 0.72 NB B 11.0 0.58 D 34.6 0.93 D 33.6 0.92 Roundabout SB B 14.7 0.66 A 8.9 0.41 A 6.6 0.34 1With the traffic management plan in-place, a police officer is currently stationed at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue to assist in directing traffic. Therefore, the estimated delays and level-of-service shown for the All-Way Stop control may not be a true indication of the actual traffic operations during this period. 23 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Improvement Analysis Improvements to Accommodate Existing Weekday Traffic Presently, the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue is operating below the desired LOS C on the southbound approach during the AM peak hour and the eastbound, westbound, and northbound approaches during the PM peak hour. Therefore, maintaining the existing all-way stop control at the intersection should not be considered as a viable alternative for managing existing traffic conditions. As shown in the Table 4, installation of a traffic signal or a roundabout will effectively meet the needs of existing weekday intersection traffic. No additional improvements beyond signalization or a roundabout would be required to mitigate operational concerns for these traffic conditions. Improvements to Accommodate Existing Special Event Traffic For existing special event traffic conditions, it is estimated that a roundabout would effectively manage traffic during the pre- and post-game periods, with or without a traffic management plan (TMP). However, under traffic signal control the intersection is estimated to experience excessive delays on the northbound approach without a TMP using the signal timing and phasing shown in Figure 9. Intersection operations can be improved without the need for a TMP by applying minor revisions to the signal timing as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 Signal Timing and Phasing for Post-Game Period 24 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue The revisions to the signal timing could be made in the traffic controller at the intersection with no additional equipment. The timing modifications would allow the intersection to operate at LOS B on all approaches with or without a TMP as shown in Table 8 below. Table 8 Estimated Existing Special Event Intersection Mitigation Measures Summary Post-Game Peak Hour w/o Traffic Management Plan Post-Game Peak Hour w/ Traffic Management Plan Traffic Control Alternative Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB B 18.2 0.66 B 18.2 0.66 WB B 19.7 0.71 B 19.7 0.71 NB B 19.9 0.81 B 14.2 0.68 Traffic Signal SB B 10.4 0.38 B 10.8 0.42 Improvements to Accommodate Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic Additional measures are necessary to accommodate special event traffic during both the post-game analysis periods with a traffic signal and during the post-game period with a roundabout. Initially, traffic signal operations were analyzed using HCS+ with the signal timing and phasing shown in Figure 10. As shown in Table 9, simple modifications to the signal timing would only be an effective mitigation measure for the post-game period utilizing a TMP. In order to accommodate the pre- game period and the case where a TMP is not utilized, alternative mitigation measures would be necessary. Intersection traffic signal control was again evaluated using HCS+ with the addition of eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. In addition, separate timing plans were generated for the pre- and post-game periods. The HCS+ analysis results are summarized in Table 10, and the timing plans are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Table 9 Estimated 2025 Special Event Intersection Signal Timing Mitigation Summary Pre-Game Peak Hour Post-Game Peak Hour w/o Traffic Management Plan Post-Game Peak Hour w/ Traffic Management Plan1 Traffic Control Alternative Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB F 94.2 1.12 C 26.7 0.82 C 26.7 0.82 WB F 146.8 1.24 C 31.5 0.87 C 31.5 0.87 NB B 16.1 0.71 E 55.6 1.02 B 19.9 0.82 Traffic Signal SB B 15.5 0.70 B 11.5 0.50 B 14.8 0.63 25 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue In order to mitigate intersection operations with roundabout control for special event traffic, the capacity must be increased or traffic volumes reduced through the use of a TMP. Due to the limited right-of-way availability, increasing capacity through a multi-lane roundabout or adding right turn by-pass lanes would not be viable alternatives. Therefore, reductions in the number of vehicles entering the intersection through a TMP would be necessary. During the post-game period, it is estimated that the greatest number of vehicles entering the intersection would come from the south. Traffic from this direction could be limited by diverting a greater number of vehicles. It was determined that a ten percent (10%) reduction in northbound traffic volumes would allow the intersection to operate at acceptable levels of service on all approaches as shown in Table 10. Table 10 Estimated 2025 Special Event Intersection Mitigation Measures Summary Pre-Game Peak Hour Post-Game Peak Hour w/o Traffic Management Plan Post-Game Peak Hour w/ Traffic Management Plan1 Traffic Control Alternative Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB L B 10.0 0.14 B 15.0 0.28 B 15.0 0.28 EB TR C 24.1 0.83 C 21.9 0.72 C 21.9 0.72 WB L B 16.9 0.59 B 14.9 0.28 B 14.9 0.28 WB TR B 12.4 0.49 C 23.8 0.76 C 23.8 0.76 NB C 27.0 0.84 C 30.1 0.93 B 14.7 0.75 Traffic Signal SB C 22.3 0.79 A 9.5 0.45 B 10.3 0.52 EB A 7.0 0.46 A 7.0 0.46 WB C 16.2 0.69 C 15.8 0.68 NB C 23.3 0.84 C 22.7 0.83 Roundabout SB Not Evaluated A 8.7 0.40 A 6.6 0.34 Figure 12 Signal Timing and Phasing for 2025 Post-Game Period Mitigation Figure 11 Signal Timing and Phasing for 2025 Pre-Game Period Mitigation 26 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue As shown in Table 10, traffic signal operations for estimated 2025 special event traffic conditions can be mitigated with the addition of eastbound and westbound left turn lanes utilizing permissive phasing and modifications to the timing. Both the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives have some approaches that operate at LOS C during the post-game period with or without using a TMP. Additional Improvements to Accommodate 2025 Weekday Traffic Estimated 2025 weekday traffic operations were evaluated under traffic signal control with the addition of eastbound and westbound left turn lanes, permissive left turn phasing, and modifications to the intersection signal timing as shown in Figure 13. These modifications would improve overall intersection traffic operations, having LOS B on all approaches during both AM and PM peak hours, and provide additional reserve capacity for future traffic growth as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Estimated 2025 Weekday Intersection Mitigation Measures Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic Control Alternative Approach Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c Approach LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c EB L B 10.6 0.10 B 11.7 0.26 EB TR B 18.6 0.71 B 18.1 0.71 WB L B 13.7 0.46 B 11.2 0.18 WB TR B 13.1 0.48 B 14.7 0.59 NB B 11.4 0.37 B 15.8 0.68 Traffic Signal SB B 18.5 0.75 B 13.3 0.54 Figure 13 Signal Timing and Phasing for Estimated 2025 Weekday Traffic with EB & WB Left Turns 27 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Findings Traffic Operations Analyses Based on the analyses included with this study, maintaining the existing all-way stop control at the study intersection does not meet the current traffic needs nor will it accommodate the estimated traffic growth in the area. As shown in the capacity and level-of-service summaries, the installation of either traffic signal control or a roundabout would greatly improve the delay experienced by drivers currently using this intersection. Additionally, each of these two alternatives would be able to accommodate anticipated traffic growth. It is also estimated that these alternatives would be able to effectively manage special event traffic now and in the future. Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses As shown through the traffic signal warrant analyses for the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue, the intersection would meet the warrant criteria for Warrants 1, 2, 3, and 8. Therefore, a traffic signal could be a feasible alternative for traffic control at the intersection. Traffic Signal Alternative Based on the included signalized intersection analyses for current and estimated 2025 traffic volumes for weekday and special event conditions, the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue would operate acceptably under signalized control. In order to accommodate special event traffic and to provide additional reserve capacity in the year 2025, it was determined that eastbound and westbound left turn lanes operating under permissive phasing should be included with signalization of the intersection. Utilizing a cycle length of 60 seconds, the overall intersection is estimated to operate at a minimum of LOS C under special event traffic conditions in design year 2025, with no individual movement less than LOS C. For estimated 2025 weekday traffic volumes, the intersection is estimated to operate at LOS B on all approaches during both the AM and PM peak hours. 28 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue In order to provide maximum flexibility for future conditions and operations, an 8-phase signal controller should be installed in a “P”-sized cabinet. Video detection would be recommended for the signal installation. In addition, traffic flow on West College Street could be improved through coordination with the traffic signals at the intersections of North 19th Avenue and Main Street/Huffine Lane. It is estimated that signalization of the intersection would require approximately 450 square feet (SF) of additional right-of-way and/or easement area for installation of the signal poles, pull-boxes, controller, and appurtenances. The additional area would primarily be needed on all but the southwest corners of the intersection. There is an estimated loss of 21 of the currently available parking spaces on West College Street with a traffic signal. The estimated initial cost of signalization, including engineering, construction, road surface improvements, right-of-way and/or easement acquisition, and construction contingency is $440,000. Considering the estimated costs for initial construction, operation and maintenance (supplied energy, pavement marking and roadway signage maintenance, traffic signal materials and hardware maintenance, and potential material replacement), fuel consumption due to driver delay, and associated with intersection crashes the estimated total present worth for a traffic signal over a 15 year timeframe is approximately $1,076,600. The present worth analysis is provided in Appendix F. The conceptual signalized intersection alternative is shown in Figure 14. Figure 14 Conceptual Signalized Intersection Alternative 29 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Roundabout Alternative The included roundabout intersection analyses for current and estimated 2025 traffic volumes indicate the intersection would operate acceptably under roundabout control. It is estimated that the northbound approach could operate at LOS D for exiting traffic following a special event in design year 2025. The eastbound and southbound approaches are estimated to operate at LOS A and the westbound approach at LOS C during this period. Additional traffic management measures consisting of a reduction in northbound traffic entering the intersection would allow the roundabout to function adequately during these periods. During the weekday, it is estimated that the roundabout would operate at a minimum of LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. It is estimated that a roundabout would require approximately 8,950 SF of additional right-of-way and/or easement area for installation. The additional area would again be needed on all but the southwest corners of the intersection. There is an estimated loss of 16 of the currently available parking spaces on either West College Street or South 11th Avenue with a roundabout. The estimated cost of installing the roundabout, including engineering, construction, landscaping, right- of-way and/or easement acquisition, and construction contingency is $700,000. The estimated costs for initial construction, operation and maintenance (supplied energy for lighting as well as pavement marking and roadway signage maintenance), fuel consumption due to driver delay, and associated with intersection crashes result in an estimated total present worth over a 15 year timeframe of approximately $916,300. The conceptual roundabout intersection alternative is shown in Figure 15. Figure 15 Conceptual Roundabout Intersection Alternative 30 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Comparison of Proposed Traffic Control Alternatives Traffic Signal Advantages Disadvantages •••• Conventional form of traffic control – drivers are familiar with its operation. •••• Relatively simple to install. Minimal easements and/or right-of-way would be required (±450 SF) to accommodate signal poles, pull-boxes, controller, and appurtenances. •••• Operates at an acceptable level-of-service under weekday and special event traffic conditions now and in the future. •••• Signal timing plans can be modified to accommodate various traffic conditions for any special event or different times of day. •••• Potential for reduction in right angle crashes at the intersection. •••• Lower installation cost ($440K) as compared to roundabout. •••• Would require on-going operation (energy) costs as well as maintenance costs, which would include at a minimum signal indications (LED), video detectors, controller, lighting, pavement markings, signage, and road surfacing. •••• May create visual barrier to MSU campus entryway signage and landscape features. •••• May cause excessive delay to be experienced by drivers during off-peak periods and when fall and spring classes are not in session at MSU. •••• May cause an increase in the number of rear-end crashes, potentially resulting in injuries. •••• May increase delay experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists waiting to cross and does not reduce the distance they are required to cross. •••• Presents unique vehicle-bicyclist conflict points from left and right turning movements. •••• Greater total present worth as compared to roundabout. Roundabout Advantages Disadvantages •••• Provides continuous flow of traffic and acceptable level- of-service for a majority of traffic conditions now and in the future. •••• Does not cause excessive delay during off-peak periods or when fall and spring classes are not in session at MSU. •••• Improved intersection safety, resulting in fewer crashes, less damage, and minor injuries, if any. •••• Requires minimal operational costs (lighting) and maintenance costs would be limited (pavement markings, signage, and road surfacing as necessary). •••• Provides an opportunity to create a defining entryway feature to the MSU campus. •••• Splitter islands reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and bicyclists to single traffic lanes and provide refuge from moving traffic. •••• Lower total present worth as compared to traffic signal. •••• Local drivers are less familiar with its operation. •••• Will require more right-of-way and/or easement area (±8,950 SF) as compared to traffic signal. •••• Initial construction costs ($700K) would be higher than those for a traffic signal and would require relocation of the intersection and modification of storm water management features on the northeast corner of the intersection. •••• Requires drivers to yield to pedestrians at the entrances and exits to the roundabout. •••• Vision impaired pedestrians are disadvantaged due to the continuous flow of traffic. 31 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the analyses provided herein, either a traffic signal or roundabout would be effective at the intersection of West College Street and South 11th Avenue. Depending on the selected alternative, the recommended improvements would be as follows: Traffic Signal Alternative Left turn lanes should be provided on the eastbound and westbound approaches with a minimum storage distance of 50 feet, 8:1 tapers for the auxiliary turn lanes, and 15:1 tapers for necessary lane shifts. An 8-phase traffic signal controller housed in a Type P cabinet should be utilized. Video detection should be provided for each approach. The intersection should utilize a minimum 60 second cycle length under two-phase (actuated) operation. Accommodations must be made for pedestrians in accordance with the most recent Federal guidelines for accessible signals. Surface improvements are recommended to remove existing roadway rutting and deteriorated asphalt, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Asphalt repair may consist of milling and an overlay with reinforcement or full reconstruction. Signage and pavement markings shall be installed in accordance with the most recent edition of the MUTCD. Roundabout Alternative The center of the intersection should be relocated to the east and south of its current location to avoid potential conflicts with utilities on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection. A roundabout with an inscribed circle diameter of 130 feet is recommended to accommodate up to a minimum WB-50 design vehicle. A maximum design speed of 20 mph should be utilized in the design and layout of the approach and exit flares to and from the roundabout. Splitter islands should have a minimum width of six feet (6’) at pedestrian crossings to accommodate bicyclists. Signage and pavement markings shall be installed in accordance with the most recent edition of the MUTCD. 32 Intersection Improvements Study – West College Street & South 11th Avenue References 1. Boswell, Evelyn. (September 7, 2007). “Plan unveiled for improving traffic flow after MSU football games”. Bozeman, MT: MSU News Service. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2005). Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice. Washington, DC. 3. Montana Department of Transportation. (July 1999). Traffic Engineering Manual. Helena, MT. 4. Robert Peccia & Associates. (June 2001). Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update. Bozeman, MT: City of Bozeman. 5. Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Washington, DC. 6. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (November 2004). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition with Revision Number 1 Incorporated. Washington, DC. 7. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (June 2000). Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Washington, DC. 8. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (August 2004). Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Washington, DC. 9. Western Transportation Institute. (September 2006 and November 2007). “West College Street and South 11th Avenue Vehicular Turning Movement Counts”. Bozeman, MT. Appendix A Traffic Count Data Page 1/1Calibration Factor:Hour% ofBegin EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB TOTAL Total0:00 62 95 64 85 43 7756 86 142 0.99%1:00 38 55 26 33 36 5133 47 80 0.56%2:00 32 47 11 15 21 3021 31 52 0.36%3:00 10 22 6 6 7 148 14 22 0.15%4:00 11 19 14 19 9 1811 19 30 0.21%5:00 34 65 45 81 32 7237 73 110 0.77%6:00 107 166 119 173 118 173115 171 285 2.00%7:00 286 419 294 432 262 413281 421 702 4.91%8:00 367 540 324 518 353 582348 547 895 6.26%9:00 320 481 290 440 305 439305 453 758 5.30%10:00 360 518 279 411320 465 785 5.49%11:00 368 565 329 550 351 533349 549 899 6.29%12:00 397 648 354 599 344 599365 615 980 6.86%13:00 377 599 358 592 365 612367 601 968 6.77%14:00 373 569 371 620 362 599369 596 965 6.75%15:00 386 629 411 641 388 620395 630 1,025 7.17%16:00 377 667 397 623 367 663380 651 1,031 7.21%17:00 337 608 390 672 348 627358 635 994 6.95%18:00 359 568 365 618 362 602362 596 958 6.70%19:00 277 443 316 535 277 500290 493 783 5.48%20:00 233 407 271 439 254 439253 429 681 4.76%21:00 195 316 205 346 227 389209 350 559 3.91%22:00 154 230 139 222 124 227139 226 365 2.55%23:00 87 145 92 132 87 14389 140 229 1.60%TOTAL 3,921 6,395 5,622 9,018 5,328 8,768 1,187 1,869 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,459 8,838 0 0 14,297 100.00%14,2970AverageWeekend0 0 0 14,297WeekdayAverage3/22/200810,316 14,640 14,096 3,055Monday3/17/2008Saturday3/23/2008Sunday3/20/2008Wednesday3/21/2008Thursday1.0663/19/2008Wednesday3/18/2008TuesdayTRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT SUMMARYRoadway:Count Location:Road Classification:Dates Performed:College Street+/- 50' West of South 11th Avenue3/17/2008 to 3/20/2008Urban Minor ArterialPercentage of Daily Traffic Volume Per Hour0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00Time of DayPercentage of TotalN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_W_South-11th-Avenue_031708_032008.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Calibration Factor:Hour% ofBegin EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB TOTAL Total0:00 68 72 47 43 49 5655 57 111 1.09%1:00 44 31 25 21 36 2635 26 61 0.60%2:00 30 26 14 7 16 1320 15 35 0.34%3:00 12 16 8 4 9 710 9 18 0.18%4:00 13 10 12 9 5 1310 11 21 0.20%5:00 21 38 21 59 21 4621 47 68 0.66%6:00 56 96 68 87 64 8562 89 152 1.48%7:00 192 294 191 237 212 261198 264 462 4.51%8:00 303 324 311 324 338 339317 329 646 6.30%9:00 306 274 263 244284 259 543 5.30%10:00 309 269 287 222298 246 544 5.30%11:00 33 537 307 280170 408 578 5.63%12:00 371 307 384 346 406 285387 312 699 6.81%13:00 407 280 358 316 342 302369 299 668 6.51%14:00 339 289 354 322 363 304352 305 657 6.41%15:00 407 290 358 319 421 278395 296 691 6.73%16:00 419 315 459 316 411 334429 322 751 7.32%17:00 475 280 486 317 484 248481 282 763 7.44%18:00 384 311 425 317 442 319417 315 732 7.14%19:00 290 278 315 298 295 302300 293 592 5.78%20:00 273 277 311 233 283 267289 259 548 5.34%21:00 225 186 257 212 264 221249 206 455 4.44%22:00 155 120 144 127 170 142156 130 286 2.79%23:00 98 96 82 90 95 6491 83 175 1.70%TOTAL 3,840 3,026 5,317 5,199 5,528 4,599 750 845 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,396 4,861 0 0 10,257 100.00%10,2570AverageWeekend0 0 0 10,257WeekdayAverage3/22/20086,867 10,516 10,127 1,595Monday3/17/2008Saturday3/23/2008Sunday3/20/2008Wednesday3/21/2008Thursday1.3003/19/2008Wednesday3/18/2008TuesdayTRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT SUMMARYRoadway:Count Location:Road Classification:Dates Performed:College Street+/- 50' East of South 11th Avenue3/17/2008 to 3/20/2008Urban Minor ArterialPercentage of Daily Traffic Volume Per Hour0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00Time of DayPercentage of TotalN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_E_South-11th-Avenue_031708_032008.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Calibration Factor:Hour% ofBegin NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB TOTAL Total0:00 51 46 55 27 63 3956 37 93 0.96%1:00 29 15 16 15 16 1221 14 34 0.35%2:00 23 16 11 8 11 1315 13 27 0.28%3:00 4 7 8 5 8 17 4 11 0.11%4:00 9 4 4 4 8 87 5 13 0.13%5:00 32 31 27 38 28 4329 37 66 0.68%6:00 44 67 66 9855 82 137 1.41%7:00 166 478 212 480189 479 668 6.85%8:00 204 373 200 503202 438 639 6.56%9:00 260 314 182 268221 291 512 5.25%10:00 243 263 235 228239 245 484 4.96%11:00 336 224 297 264317 244 561 5.75%12:00 339 315 366 367 344 327350 336 686 7.04%13:00 327 332 295 343 318 326313 334 647 6.64%14:00 339 277 366 275 360 281355 278 633 6.49%15:00 360 338 354 328 339 275351 314 665 6.82%16:00 364 306 352 322 348 296355 308 663 6.80%17:00 360 316 347 316 320 370343 334 677 6.94%18:00 316 259 326 354 300 373314 328 642 6.59%19:00 304 217 367 312 338 260336 263 599 6.15%20:00 253 204 259 244 265 264259 237 496 5.09%21:00 176 123 272 149 268 135239 136 374 3.84%22:00 161 75 188 90 157 130168 98 267 2.74%23:00 90 86 95 46 99 3995 57 151 1.55%TOTAL 3,390 2,848 4,987 4,981 4,769 5,012 134 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,834 4,912 0 0 9,746 100.00%9,7460AverageWeekend0 0 0 9,746WeekdayAverage3/22/20086,238 9,968 9,781 251Monday3/17/2008Saturday3/23/2008Sunday3/20/2008Wednesday3/21/2008Thursday1.3403/19/2008Wednesday3/18/2008TuesdayTRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT SUMMARYRoadway:Count Location:Road Classification:Dates Performed:South 11th Avenue+/- 50' South of College Street3/17/2008 to 3/20/2008Urban CollectorPercentage of Daily Traffic Volume Per Hour0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00Time of DayPercentage of TotalN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\South-11th-Avenue_S_College-Street_031708_032008.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Calibration Factor:Hour% ofBegin NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB TOTAL Total0:00 25 30 34 18 40 2533 24 57 0.77%1:00 23 12 13 10 8 1115 11 26 0.35%2:00 8 15 6 8 7 97 11 17 0.23%3:00 4 10 3 6 3 64 7 11 0.14%4:00 4 2 4 4 4 34 3 8 0.10%5:00 18 24 22 21 21 2320 23 43 0.58%6:00 30 45 50 54 35 5438 51 89 1.20%7:00 226 224 218 234 217 219220 226 446 6.01%8:00 210 274 253 281 252 278238 278 516 6.96%9:00 184 196 172 196178 196 373 5.04%10:00 215 175 191 177203 176 379 5.11%11:00 228 199 250 187 206 212228 199 427 5.76%12:00 290 261 319 296 297 243302 267 569 7.67%13:00 246 264 212 256 282 250247 257 503 6.79%14:00 245 240 263 196 266 251258 229 487 6.57%15:00 314 265 314 240 241 227289 244 533 7.19%16:00 300 264 272 268 311 246294 260 554 7.47%17:00 298 248 325 254 332 245318 249 567 7.65%18:00 251 228 237 243 272 249253 240 493 6.65%19:00 202 178 260 221 219 189227 196 423 5.71%20:00 172 164 157 179 196 207175 183 358 4.83%21:00 110 108 157 100 175 116147 108 255 3.44%22:00 98 73 120 69 85 107101 83 184 2.48%23:00 50 67 46 35 63 2953 44 96 1.30%TOTAL 2,804 2,558 3,876 3,553 3,909 3,577 586 628 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,852 3,563 0 0 7,415 100.00%7,4150AverageWeekend0 0 0 7,415WeekdayAverage3/22/20085,361 7,429 7,487 1,214Monday3/17/2008Saturday3/23/2008Sunday3/20/2008Wednesday3/21/2008Thursday1.1003/19/2008Wednesday3/18/2008TuesdayTRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT SUMMARYRoadway:Count Location:Road Classification:Dates Performed:South 11th Avenue+/- 30' North of College Street3/17/2008 to 3/20/2008Urban CollectorPercentage of Daily Traffic Volume Per Hour0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00Time of DayPercentage of TotalN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\South-11th-Avenue_N_College-Street_031708_032008.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 Total % % Volume PHFL 0 2 8 5 10 10 12 4 51 9.51% 2.64% 37 0.77T 0 24 51 85 63 49 47 69 388 72.39% 20.10% 244 0.72R 0 14 10 9 11 12 13 17 86 16.04% 4.46% 45 0.87Ped 0 2 2 3 2 0 1 1 11 2.05% 0.57% 6 0.50L 0 3 4 12 7 7 10 4 47 15.67% 2.44% 36 0.75T 0 45 24 29 27 41 24 13 203 67.67% 10.52% 121 0.74R 0 4 7 5 7 2 6 6 37 12.33% 1.92% 20 0.71Ped 0 0 1 4 3 2 0 3 13 4.33% 0.67% 9 0.56L 0 7 9 24 22 14 25 23 124 24.27% 6.42% 85 0.85T 0 22 26 51 52 40 53 39 283 55.38% 14.66% 196 0.92R 0 10 9 12 20 15 9 6 81 15.85% 4.20% 56 0.70Ped 0 0 2 9 8 0 3 1 23 4.50% 1.19% 20 0.56L 0 4 8 7 7 11 6 11 54 9.26% 2.80% 31 0.70T 0 25 32 38 51 52 51 52 301 51.63% 15.60% 192 0.92R 0 19 45 40 20 17 21 27 189 32.42% 9.79% 98 0.61Ped 0 0 2 15 7 0 4 11 39 6.69% 2.02% 26 0.430 181 240 348 317 272 285 287 1930 100.00% 1222 0.88769 1086 1177 1222 1161AM Peak Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana3/19/2008Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_AM_031908.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 Total % % Volume PHFL 13 16 9 16 12 13 17 17 113 22.74% 4.07% 58 0.85T 33 30 30 34 32 31 29 50 269 54.12% 9.70% 126 0.93R 10 17 21 9 12 14 12 10 105 21.13% 3.79% 47 0.84Ped 0 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 10 2.01% 0.36% 6 0.50L 23 28 21 21 25 26 20 20 184 24.15% 6.63% 92 0.88T 57 36 50 53 52 51 67 51 417 54.72% 15.03% 223 0.83R 10 14 19 16 19 21 11 18 128 16.80% 4.61% 67 0.80Ped 5 2 0 7 3 6 3 7 33 4.33% 1.19% 19 0.68L 14 8 12 8 17 8 16 14 97 13.18% 3.50% 49 0.72T 56 64 56 66 65 56 40 63 466 63.32% 16.80% 227 0.86R 15 9 16 12 12 13 10 17 104 14.13% 3.75% 47 0.90Ped 8 5 3 16 11 13 7 6 69 9.38% 2.49% 47 0.73L 18 16 10 16 16 9 13 10 108 13.86% 3.89% 54 0.84T 56 45 49 69 69 68 70 57 483 62.00% 17.41% 276 0.99R 15 12 12 14 11 23 14 18 119 15.28% 4.29% 62 0.67Ped 4 4 11 18 8 18 1 5 69 8.86% 2.49% 45 0.63337 308 321 378 366 371 330 363 2774 100.00% 1445 0.961344 1373 1436 1445 1430PM Peak Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana3/19/2008Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_PM_031908.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 Total % % Volume PHFL 9 14 11 17 13 18 18 16 116 19.24% 4.52% 66 0.92T 40 33 44 63 59 52 67 51 409 67.83% 15.93% 241 0.90R 6 9 5 10 8 10 16 14 78 12.94% 3.04% 44 0.69Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 31 18 33 23 26 24 14 21 190 32.87% 7.40% 87 0.84T 32 38 46 43 28 23 33 40 283 48.96% 11.02% 127 0.74R 12 14 11 14 12 10 15 17 105 18.17% 4.09% 51 0.85Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 24 13 18 26 29 31 27 23 191 29.38% 7.44% 113 0.91T 59 54 57 58 76 35 47 47 433 66.62% 16.86% 216 0.71R 5 6 3 6 0 1 3 2 26 4.00% 1.01% 10 0.42Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 6 7 5 6 13 7 6 7 57 7.73% 2.22% 32 0.62T 60 66 65 66 63 49 57 59 485 65.81% 18.89% 235 0.89R 16 18 16 27 23 37 37 21 195 26.46% 7.59% 124 0.84Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00300 290 314 359 350 297 340 318 2568 100.00% 1346 0.941263 1313 1320 1346 1305Pre-Game Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana9/23/2006Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\WTI_College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Pre-Game_092306.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 Total % % Volume PHFL 10 9 7 17 10 10 63 25.40% 3.51% 43 0.63T 14 17 24 14 29 30 128 51.61% 7.13% 69 0.72R 2 3 16 16 10 10 57 22.98% 3.18% 37 0.58Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 41 24 32 37 23 21 178 28.03% 9.92% 134 0.82T 65 74 58 64 56 53 370 58.27% 20.62% 261 0.88R 13 16 23 12 13 10 87 13.70% 4.85% 64 0.70Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 5 5 10 15 7 8 50 11.34% 2.79% 35 0.58T 64 56 61 65 62 43 351 79.59% 19.57% 246 0.95R 4 3 12 11 3 7 40 9.07% 2.23% 30 0.63Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 17 12 3 15 12 5 64 13.62% 3.57% 47 0.69T 64 54 60 57 66 63 364 77.45% 20.29% 235 0.92R 9 5 5 7 12 4 42 8.94% 2.34% 26 0.72Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00308 278 311 330 303 264 1794 100.00% 1227 0.931227 1222 1208 897 567Post-Game Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana9/23/2006Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\WTI_College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_092306.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 Total % % Volume PHFL 6 5 11 5 17 6 12 10 72 18.09% 3.95% 45 0.66T 16 19 27 27 41 33 34 31 228 57.29% 12.50% 139 0.85R 9 14 10 13 15 12 11 14 98 24.62% 5.37% 52 0.87Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 12 8 8 10 12 10 11 8 79 20.68% 4.33% 41 0.85T 14 25 25 27 33 39 28 28 219 57.33% 12.01% 128 0.82R 5 7 15 7 16 10 15 9 84 21.99% 4.61% 50 0.78Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 3 5 10 8 8 8 9 11 62 11.44% 3.40% 36 0.82T 46 53 51 45 60 48 46 55 404 74.54% 22.15% 209 0.87R 6 10 10 12 7 12 9 10 76 14.02% 4.17% 38 0.79Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 9 8 6 8 7 7 7 6 58 11.55% 3.18% 27 0.96T 38 42 46 42 58 44 51 41 362 72.11% 19.85% 194 0.84R 7 9 10 9 9 14 11 13 82 16.33% 4.50% 47 0.84Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00171 205 229 213 283 243 244 236 1824 100.00% 1006 0.89818 930 968 983 1006Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsSaturday (Non-Game Day) Typical Pre-Game Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana9/30/2006N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\WTI_College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Non-Game_Pre-Period_093006.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 Total % % Volume PHFL 4 13 9 9 14 14 63 23.16% 4.65% 35 0.67T 26 20 28 24 30 30 158 58.09% 11.67% 98 0.88R 10 10 7 12 10 2 51 18.75% 3.77% 39 0.81Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 11 9 9 9 17 10 65 20.19% 4.80% 38 0.86T 28 28 44 37 36 22 195 60.56% 14.40% 137 0.78R 6 12 11 20 6 7 62 19.25% 4.58% 49 0.61Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 11 17 14 6 7 4 59 16.34% 4.36% 48 0.71T 57 35 45 34 36 45 252 69.81% 18.61% 171 0.75R 11 6 10 2 9 12 50 13.85% 3.69% 29 0.66Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 4 9 9 8 10 7 47 11.78% 3.47% 30 0.83T 50 47 53 48 44 47 289 72.43% 21.34% 198 0.93R 10 12 11 13 9 8 63 15.79% 4.65% 46 0.88Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00228 218 250 222 228 208 1354 100.00% 918 0.92918 918 908 658 436Saturday (Non-Game Day) Typical Post-Game Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana9/30/2006Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\WTI_College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Non-Game_Post-Period_093006.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Analysis Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Weighted Mean HourlyRoad MovementFlow Rate (veh/h)L65T95R65Ped0L175T325R95Ped0L50T285R50Ped0L50T255R45Ped01555Design Post-Game Peak Hour w/o Traffic Management Plan1.00Intersection TotalsCollege StreetFrom the WestSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the South72Design Intersection Volume SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, MontanaCollege StreetFrom the East9/23/2006 11/17/2007Peak Hour Volume43 376937 420 0134 168261 32864 810 035 34246 25430 380 047 23235 23626 430 01227 1356Peak Hour Factor9/23/2006 11/17/20070.63 0.620.72 0.780.58 0.620.00 0.000.82 0.890.88 0.940.70 0.820.00 0.000.58 0.770.95 0.800.63 0.680.00 0.000.69 0.720.92 0.910.72 0.770.00 0.000.93 0.98Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h)9/23/2006 11/17/200768 6096 9264 680 0163 189297 34991 990 060 44259 31848 560 068 32255 25936 560 01506 1621N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Design-Game-Day_Post-Period_No-TM-Plan.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 Total % % Volume PHFL 17 7 6 1343 14.05% 3.24% 43 0.63T 50 61 57 54222 72.55% 16.70% 222 0.91R 9 8 12 1241 13.40% 3.09% 41 0.85Ped 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 29 28 29 38124 39.12% 9.33% 124 0.82T 30 35 38 44147 46.37% 11.06% 147 0.84R 13 14 8 1146 14.51% 3.46% 46 0.82Ped 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 18 17 16 2273 25.09% 5.49% 73 0.83T 43 44 50 49186 63.92% 14.00% 186 0.93R 10 7 7 832 11.00% 2.41% 32 0.80Ped 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 6 9 5 1030 7.23% 2.26% 30 0.75T 75 57 65 69266 64.10% 20.02% 266 0.89R 25 38 27 29119 28.67% 8.95% 119 0.78Ped 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00325 325 320 359 0 0 0 0 1329 100.00% 1329 0.931329 1004 679 359 0Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsPre-Game Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana11/3/2007N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\WTI_College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Pre-Game_110307.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Date Count Performed:Count Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Approach Total Peak HourRoad Movement 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 Total % % Volume PHFL 7 15 7 5 10 10 4 10 68 24.29% 2.67% 37 0.62T 17 14 16 19 23 14 17 24 144 51.43% 5.65% 72 0.78R 6 2 10 17 13 9 2 9 68 24.29% 2.67% 42 0.62Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0.78% 0.31% 0 0.00T 91 125 117 131 120 101 89 76 850 83.09% 33.36% 493 0.94R 24 15 22 22 25 25 16 16 165 16.13% 6.48% 84 0.84Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 13 6 11 10 7 20 19 13 99 15.44% 3.89% 34 0.77T 60 79 62 59 54 64 64 39 481 75.04% 18.88% 254 0.80R 4 8 7 9 14 4 8 7 61 9.52% 2.39% 38 0.68Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00L 1 5 5 5 8 8 5 1 38 6.29% 1.49% 23 0.72T 54 63 65 61 47 61 71 61 483 79.97% 18.96% 236 0.91R 8 14 8 7 14 11 9 12 83 13.74% 3.26% 43 0.77Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00291 346 330 345 335 327 304 270 2548 100.00% 1356 0.981312 1356 1337 1311 1236Post-Game Period1.00Intersection Turning Movement Count SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, Montana11/17/2007Hourly VolumeCollege StreetFrom the EastCollege StreetFrom the WestStart TimeSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the SouthIntersection TotalsN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\WTI_College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_111707.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Analysis Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Weighted Mean HourlyRoad MovementFlow Rate (veh/h)L70T255R55Ped0L125T175R60Ped0L105T245R35Ped0L45T280R150Ped01600Design Pre-Game Peak Hour1.00Intersection TotalsCollege StreetFrom the WestSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the South222Design Intersection Volume SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, MontanaCollege StreetFrom the East9/23/2006 11/3/2007Peak Hour Volume66 4324144 410 087 124127 14751 460 0113 73216 18610 320 032 30235 266124 1190 01346 1329Peak Hour Factor9/23/2006 11/3/20070.92 0.630.90 0.910.69 0.850.00 0.000.84 0.820.74 0.840.85 0.820.00 0.000.91 0.830.71 0.930.42 0.800.00 0.000.62 0.750.89 0.890.84 0.780.00 0.000.94 0.93Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h)9/23/2006 11/3/200772 68268 24464 480 0104 151172 17560 560 0124 88304 20024 400 052 40264 299148 1530 01654 1562N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Design-Game-Day_Pre-Period.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Page 1/1Intersection:Location:Analysis Time Period:Seasonal Adjustment Factor:Street/Weighted Mean HourlyRoad MovementFlow Rate (veh/h)L65T95R65Ped0L0T495R100Ped0L50T285R50Ped0L50T255R45Ped01555Design Post-Game Peak Hour with Traffic Management Plan1.00Intersection TotalsCollege StreetFrom the WestSouth 11th AvenueFrom the NorthSouth 11th AvenueFrom the South72Design Intersection Volume SummaryCollege Street & South 11th AvenueBozeman, MontanaCollege StreetFrom the East9/23/2006 11/17/2007Peak Hour Volume43 376937 420 00 0392 49367 840 035 34246 25430 380 047 23235 23626 430 01227 1356Peak Hour Factor9/23/2006 11/17/20070.63 0.620.72 0.780.58 0.620.00 0.000.00 0.000.84 0.940.70 0.840.00 0.000.58 0.770.95 0.800.63 0.680.00 0.000.69 0.720.92 0.910.72 0.770.00 0.000.93 0.98Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h)9/23/2006 11/17/200768 6096 9264 680 00 0467 52496 1000 060 44259 31848 560 068 32255 25936 560 01517 1609N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Traffic Data\Traffic Count Data\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Design-Game-Day_Post-Period_TM-Plan.xlsPrinted On: 5/1/2008 Appendix B Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses Page S1/S1 Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation Intersection of College Street & South 11th Avenue Analysis Case: Existing Conditions with 2008 Count Data MMI Project Number: 0417.056.010.0310 Notes & Comments Warrant #8: Roadway Network Yes Traffic Control Signal Warranted Yes Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System No Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes Traffic Signal Warrant Warrant Satisfied? Warrant #7: Crash Experience No No Warrant #5: School Crossing No Warrant #3: Peak Hour Yes Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/10 Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation Intersection of College Street & South 11th Avenue Analysis Case: Existing Conditions with 2008 Count Data MMI Project Number: 0417.056.010.0310 Background Intersection Information Major Roadway:College Street Posted or 85% Speed:25 mph (Posted) Approach Lanes:1 Distance to Nearest Traffic Signal: Minor Roadway:South 11th Avenue (Y or N)N Posted or 85% Speed:25 mph (Posted) Approach Lanes:1 Total Number of Approaches:4 Traffic Count Data Collected From: Traffic Count Data 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 56 33 21 8 11 37 115 281 57 26 15 9 11 47 89 264 56 21 15 7 7 29 55 189 24 11 11 7 3 23 51 226 Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted 12 113 59 36 17 22 84 204 545 56 21 15 7 7 29 55 226 193 91 62 31 32 136 310 960 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 348 305 320 349 365 367 369 395 329 259 246 408 312 299 305 296 202 221 239 317 350 313 355 351 278 196 176 199 267 257 229 244 12 Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted 677 564 566 757 677 666 674 691 278 221 239 317 350 313 355 351 1,157 981 981 1,273 1,294 1,236 1,258 1,286 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 380 358 362 290 253 209 139 89 322 282 315 293 259 206 130 83 355 343 314 336 259 239 168 95 260 249 240 196 183 108 83 44 21 22 Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted Not Counted 702 640 677 583 512 415 269 172 355 343 314 336 259 239 168 95 1,317 1,232 1,231 1,115 954 762 520 311 Peds X-ing Major Major Street Totals Max Minor Approach Roadway South 11th Ave SB Total Entering Volume Roadway Hour Beginning South 11th Ave SB Community with a population less than 10,000 or speeds above 40 mph on the major street? Peds X-ing Major Major Street Totals Max Minor Approach Total Entering Volume College Street EB College Street WB South 11th Ave NB College Street EB College Street WB South 11th Ave NB Max Minor Approach Total Entering Volume Hour Beginning South 11th Ave NB South 11th Ave SB Peds X-ing Major Major Street Totals 2,723 ft (South 19th Avenue) College Street EB College Street WB 03/17/2008 to 03/20/2008 Roadway Hour Beginning N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 2/10 Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16:00 12:00 15:00 11:00 14:00 13:00 17:00 18:00 702 677 691 757 674 666 640 677 355 350 351 317 355 313 343 314 1,317 1,294 1,286 1,273 1,258 1,236 1,232 1,231 Condition A: Minimum Vehicular Volume 14 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Table 4C-1, Condition A, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #1 - Condition A?Yes Condition B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 1 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Table 4C-1, Condition B, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #1 - Condition B?No Combination of Conditions A & B Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #1 - Conditions A or B?Yes Has there been an adequate trial of alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic that has failed to solve intersection traffic problems (Yes or No)?No 0 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Table 4C-1, Condition A, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 0 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Table 4C-1, Condition B, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #1 - Combination of Conditions A & B?No Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #1? Major Street Total Hour Beginning Eight Highest Vehicular Volume Hours Max Minor Approach Total Entering Volume Eighth Highest Vehicular Volume (VPH) Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH)a 100%70% Major Street = 677 500 N/A Max Minor Approach = 314 150 N/A Total Number of Qualifying Hours Eighth Highest Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH) a Vehicular Volume (VPH)100%70%Total Number of Major Street = 677 750 N/A Qualifying Hours Max Minor Approach = 314 75 N/A Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicular Volume (VPH)80%56% Major Street = 677 N/A N/A N/A N/A Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Combination of Conditions Not Warranted Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH)aEighth Highest Combination of Conditions Not Warranted Total Number of Qualifying Hours Major Street = 677 N/A N/A Vehicular Volume (VPH)80%56% Qualifying Hours Total Number of Max Minor Approach = 314 N/A N/A Eighth Highest Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH) a Max Minor Approach = 314 Yes N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 3/10 Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 2 3 4 16:00 12:00 15:00 11:00 702 677 691 757 355 350 351 317 1,317 1,294 1,286 1,273 12 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Figure 4C-1 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. bWarrant minimum volumes determined from Figure 4C-2 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #2? Qualifying HoursMajor Street = 757 -- Total Number of Total Entering Volume Fourth Highest Max Minor Approach Hour Beginning Major Street Total Four Highest Vehicular Volume Hours Max Minor Approach = 317 147 N/A Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH) Vehicular Volume (VPH) 100% a 70%b Yes N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 4/10 Warrant #3: Peak Hour Does this intersection experience peaking traffic from office office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, high-occupancy vehicle facilities, or similar facilities that discharge a large number of vehicles over a short period of time (Yes or No)?Yes Condition A.1: Stopped Time Delay on Minor Street Approach veh-hrs aWarrant minimum delay determined from Part A.1 of Warrant #3 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #3 - Condition A.1?No Condition A.2: Vehicular Volume on Minor Street Approach vph aWarrant minimum volume determined from Part A.2 of Warrant #3 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #3 - Condition A.2?Yes Condition A.3: Total Intersection Entering Volume 1,317 vph aWarrant minimum volume determined from Part A.3 of Warrant #3 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #3 - Condition A.3?Yes Condition B: Vehicular Volumes on Major Street vs. Minor Street Approach Major Street = 702 355 5 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Figure 4C-3 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. bWarrant minimum volumes determined from Figure 4C-4 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #3 - Condition B?Yes Condition A.1 - Stopped Time Delay on Minor Street Approach Total Peak Hour Entering Volume at Intersection Condition A.3 - Total Vehicular Volume Entering Intersection During Peak Hour Warrant Minimuma Total Stopped Time Delay on Higher Volume Minor Street Approach Warrant Minimuma 355 100 vph 4 veh-hrs3.32 Total Peak Hour Vehicles on Higher Volume Minor Street Approach Condition A.2 - Vehicular Volume on 323 N/A Minor Street Approach Warrant Minimuma 650 vph Peak Hour Entering Volumes at Intersection (VPH) 100% a 70%b Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH) Max Minor Approach = Total Number of --Qualifying Hours N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 5/10 Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #3?Yes N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 6/10 Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume If installed, would the proposed traffic signal restrict the progressive movement of traffic on the major street based on a distance of 2,723 ft to the nearest traffic signal on the major street (Yes or No)?No Condition A: Pedestrian Volume Crossing the Major Street 12 Peds 0 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Part A of Warrant #4 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 22 Peds 0 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Part A of Warrant #4 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #4 - Condition A?No Condition B: Adequate Gaps in Traffic Stream on the Major Street Gaps/Hr aWarrant minimum gaps determined from Part B of Warrant #4 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #4 - Condition B?No Measured Number of Adequate Gaps in Traffic Stream on the Major Street Condition B - Adequate Gaps in Traffic Stream on the Major Street Warrant Minimuma Total Number of 190 Peds 60 Gaps/Hr Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #4? No 100 Peds the Major Street One-Hour Warrant Minimuma Qualifying Hours Highest Hourly Pedestrian Volume Condition A - Pedestrian Volume Crossing Fourth Highest Hourly Pedestrian Volume Condition A - Pedestrian Volume Crossing the Major Street Four-Hour Warrant Minimuma Total Number of Qualifying Hours N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 7/10 Warrant #5: School Crossing Is the proposed traffic signal located at an established school crossing location (Yes or No)?No 0 Adequate Gaps =0 0 aWarrant minimum gaps determined from Section 4C.06 and Section 7A.03 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. bWarrant minimum students determined from Section 4C.06 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #5?No Have remedial measures been implemented such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing (Yes or No)?No Number of Students =N/A Application of Signal Warrant #5: School Crossing Not Recommended Students During Crossing Period Adequate Gaps a Number of Studentsb N/A - X-ing Period (min) = Application of Traffic Signal Warrant #5: School Crossing Not Justified Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #5? No Number of Adequate Gaps and Warrant Minimums N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 8/10 Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Is the proposed traffic signal located within an existing roadway network with a coordinated signal system (Yes or No)?No What would be the resultant spacing, in feet, of traffic control signals if the proposed signal were installed?2,723 If the existing roadway network has a coordinated signal system, is the roadway: A.A one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction? or B.A two-way street? Condition A: One-Way Street Traffic Control Signal Spacing If the existing roadway is a one-way street, are the adjacent traffic control signals so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning (Yes or No)? Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #6 - Condition A?No Condition B: Two-Way Street Traffic Control Signal Spacing & Progessive Operation If the existing roadway is a two-way street, are the adjacent traffic control signals so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation (Yes or No)?No Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #6 - Condition B?No Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #6? No Application of Traffic Signal Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Not Justified Application of Traffic Signal Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Not Justified Application of Traffic Signal Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System Not Justified N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 9/10 Warrant #7: Crash Experience Condition A: Trial of Alternatives Has an adequate trial of alternatives been completed with satisfactory observance and enforcement that has failed to reduce the crash frequency (Yes or No)?No Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #7 - Condition A?No Condition B: Reported Number of Crashes Correctable by a Traffic Control Signal 5 crashes aWarrant minimum crashes determined from Part B of Warrant #7 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #7 - Condition B?No Condition C: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volumes or Pedestrian Volumes 15 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Table 4C-1, Condition A, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 9 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Table 4C-1, Condition B, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 12 Peds 0 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Part A of Warrant #4 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 22 Peds 0 aWarrant minimum volumes determined from Part A of Warrant #4 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #7 - Condition C?Yes Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #7? Total Number of One-Hour Warrant Minimuma Qualifying Hours 152 Peds 80 Peds Highest Hourly Pedestrian Volume Condition A - Pedestrian Volume Crossing the Major Street Fourth Highest Hourly Pedestrian Volume Condition A - Pedestrian Volume Crossing the Major Street Total Number of Four-Hour Warrant Minimuma Qualifying Hours Major Street = 677 600 N/A Max Minor Approach = 314 60 N/A Total Number of Vehicular Volume (VPH)80%56%Qualifying Hours Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Eighth Highest Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH) a 400 N/A Warrant Minimum Volumes (VPH)a Max Minor Approach = 314 120 N/A Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume Eighth Highest No Total Number of Vehicular Volume (VPH)80%56%Qualifying Hours Major Street = 677 Reported number of crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, that have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash 2 crash(es) Warrant Minimuma involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash. N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 10/10 Warrant #8: Roadway Network Is the proposed traffic signal located at the intersection of two or more major routes (Yes or No)?Yes A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Condition A: Peak Hour Volume and 5-Year Projected Volumes 1,317 vph 10 aWarrant minimum volume determined from Part A of Warrant #8 in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Does the intersection have 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday?Yes Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #8 - Condition A?Yes Condition B: Five-Hour Nonnormal Business Day (Saturday or Sunday) Volumes Does the intersection have existing or immediately projected entering volumes of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a nonnormal business day (Yes or No)? Is the criteria satisfied for Warrant #8 - Condition B?No Minimum criteria satisfied for Warrant #8?Yes Estimated Average Annual Growth Rate Percentage 1.50% 1000 vph Total Number of Qualifying Hours Total Peak Hour Entering Volume at Intersection Condition A - Total Vehicular Volume Entering Intersection During Peak Hour Warrant Minimuma N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Signal Warrants\College+11th_Warrants-Existing_2008.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Appendix C Capacity and Level of Service Analyses Appendix C Capacity and Level of Service Analyses Existing Conditions ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period AM Peak - Service Flow Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing (2008) Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 28 152 160 96 204 34 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 48 116 20 20 340 36 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)340 334 184 396 % Heavy Vehicles 2 3 3 3 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 Prop. Right-Turns 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.35 hd, final value (s)6.71 6.97 7.50 6.81 x, final value 0.63 0.65 0.38 0.75 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)4.7 5.0 5.5 4.8 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)494 478 392 502 Delay (s/veh)20.59 21.87 15.08 27.36 LOS C C C D Approach: Delay (s/veh) 20.59 21.87 15.08 27.36 LOS C C C D Intersection Delay (s/veh)22.26 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 11:13 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period PM Peak - Service Flow Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing (2008) Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 64 276 56 32 264 31 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 84 212 64 64 136 36 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)396 327 360 236 % Heavy Vehicles 2 3 3 3 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.21 hd, final value (s)7.29 7.54 7.47 7.95 x, final value 0.80 0.68 0.75 0.52 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)5.3 5.5 5.5 5.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)470 438 451 385 Delay (s/veh)33.74 25.35 29.34 19.27 LOS D D D C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 33.74 25.35 29.34 19.27 LOS D D D C Intersection Delay (s/veh)27.87 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 11:15 AM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period AM Peak - Service Flow Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing (2008) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)28 152 160 96 204 34 48 116 20 20 340 36 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 340 334 184 396 Lane Group Capacity 640 597 622 620 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.56 0.30 0.64 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 10.9 11.1 12.7 14.9 Delay Factor k 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.22 Incremental Delay d2 0.9 1.2 0.3 2.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.8 12.3 12.9 17.1 Lane Group LOS B B B B Approach Delay 11.8 12.3 12.9 17.1 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 13.8 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 11:19 AM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period PM Peak - Service Flow Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing (2008) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)64 276 56 32 264 31 84 212 64 64 136 36 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 396 327 360 236 Lane Group Capacity 640 688 627 534 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.48 0.57 0.44 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 11.6 10.6 14.4 13.5 Delay Factor k 0.20 0.11 0.17 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 1.8 0.5 1.3 0.6 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 13.4 11.1 15.7 14.1 Lane Group LOS B B B B Approach Delay 13.4 11.1 15.7 14.1 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 13.6 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 11:25 AM Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 28 96 48 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28 96 48 20 152 204 116 340 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 152 204 116 340 160 34 20 36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 160 34 20 36 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 967 1,192 1,184 1,054 784 986 979 862 0.35 0.28 0.16 0.38 0.43 0.34 0.19 0.46 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 5.73 4.19 3.60 5.46 8.06 5.51 4.53 7.68 A A A A A A A A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 AM Peak - Service Flow College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Existing (2008) Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 340 334 184 396 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 456 Vc,w 192 Vc,n 200 Vc,s 348 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Existing Conditions\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_AM_Existing_Service-Flow.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 64 32 84 64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 32 84 64 276 264 212 136 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 276 264 212 136 56 31 64 36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 56 31 64 36 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,155 1,044 1,008 1,027 952 853 821 838 0.34 0.31 0.36 0.23 0.42 0.38 0.44 0.28 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 4.74 5.02 5.54 4.55 6.44 6.82 7.77 5.97 A A A A A A A A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 PM Peak - Service Flow College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Existing (2008) Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 396 327 360 236 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 232 Vc,w 360 Vc,n 404 Vc,s 380 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Existing Conditions\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_PM_Existing_Service-Flow.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Appendix C Capacity and Level of Service Analyses Estimated 2025 Weekday Traffic ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period AM Peak - DHV Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 40 200 210 125 270 45 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 65 155 30 30 450 50 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)450 440 250 530 % Heavy Vehicles 2 3 3 3 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 Prop. Right-Turns 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.40 0.39 0.22 0.47 hd, final value (s)8.72 9.01 9.85 8.97 x, final value 1.09 1.10 0.68 1.32 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)6.7 7.0 7.8 7.0 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)450 440 366 530 Delay (s/veh)100.58 105.43 31.65 186.63 LOS F F D F Approach: Delay (s/veh) 100.58 105.43 31.65 186.63 LOS F F D F Intersection Delay (s/veh)118.85 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:18 PM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period PM Peak - DHV Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 85 365 75 45 350 40 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 110 280 85 85 180 50 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)525 435 475 315 % Heavy Vehicles 2 3 3 3 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.47 0.39 0.42 0.28 hd, final value (s)9.42 9.45 9.43 9.82 x, final value 1.37 1.14 1.24 0.86 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)7.4 7.5 7.4 7.8 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)525 435 475 367 Delay (s/veh)209.79 121.17 158.23 50.50 LOS F F F F Approach: Delay (s/veh) 209.79 121.17 158.23 50.50 LOS F F F F Intersection Delay (s/veh)145.09 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:20 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period AM Peak - DHV Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)40 200 210 125 270 45 65 155 30 30 450 50 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 25 10 0 20 10 0 15 10 0 15 10 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.6 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 450 440 250 530 Lane Group Capacity 625 566 563 613 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.78 0.44 0.86 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 12.5 13.0 13.6 16.9 Delay Factor k 0.28 0.33 0.11 0.39 Incremental Delay d2 4.0 6.8 0.6 12.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 16.5 19.8 14.1 29.2 Lane Group LOS B B B C Approach Delay 16.5 19.8 14.1 29.2 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Delay 21.0 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:21 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period PM Peak - DHV Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)85 365 75 45 350 40 110 280 85 85 180 50 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 25 10 0 20 10 0 15 10 0 15 10 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.6 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 525 435 475 315 Lane Group Capacity 623 669 606 488 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.65 0.78 0.65 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 13.7 11.8 16.1 15.0 Delay Factor k 0.38 0.23 0.33 0.22 Incremental Delay d2 10.2 2.2 6.7 2.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 23.9 14.1 22.8 17.9 Lane Group LOS C B C B Approach Delay 23.9 14.1 22.8 17.9 Approach LOS C B C B Intersection Delay 20.1 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:23 PM Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 40 125 65 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 125 65 30 200 270 155 450 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 200 270 155 450 210 45 30 50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 210 45 30 50 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 858 1,129 1,121 964 688 930 922 781 0.52 0.39 0.22 0.55 0.65 0.47 0.27 0.68 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 8.73 5.21 4.13 8.20 14.58 7.30 5.35 13.75 A A A A B A A B ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 AM Peak - DHV College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman 2025 Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 450 440 250 530 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 605 Vc,w 260 Vc,n 270 Vc,s 460 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\2025\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_AM_2025-DHV.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 85 45 110 85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 85 45 110 85 365 350 280 180 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 365 350 280 180 75 40 85 50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 40 85 50 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,086 952 908 930 890 771 732 751 0.48 0.46 0.52 0.34 0.59 0.56 0.65 0.42 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 6.38 6.92 8.24 5.84 9.68 10.53 13.56 8.21 A A A A A B B A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 PM Peak - DHV College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman 2025 Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 525 435 475 315 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 310 Vc,w 475 Vc,n 535 Vc,s 505 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\2025\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_PM_2025-DHV.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Appendix C Capacity and Level of Service Analyses Special Event Traffic ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period Pre-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Special Event Traffic Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 45 280 150 105 245 35 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 125 175 60 70 255 55 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)475 385 360 380 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.50 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 Prop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.2 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.34 hd, final value (s)9.60 9.78 9.80 9.73 x, final value 1.27 1.05 0.98 1.03 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)7.6 7.8 7.8 7.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)475 385 368 380 Delay (s/veh)291.59 131.44 97.19 120.21 LOS F F F F Approach: Delay (s/veh) 291.59 131.44 97.19 120.21 LOS F F F F Intersection Delay (s/veh)168.61 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 12:18 PM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event No TM-Plan Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 50 255 45 50 285 50 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 175 325 95 65 95 65 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)350 385 595 225 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.50 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.31 0.34 0.53 0.20 hd, final value (s)8.32 8.18 7.93 8.86 x, final value 0.81 0.87 1.31 0.55 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)6.3 6.2 5.9 6.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)422 434 595 376 Delay (s/veh)41.31 52.91 321.29 22.59 LOS E F F C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 41.31 52.91 321.29 22.59 LOS E F F C Intersection Delay (s/veh)148.60 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 12:20 PM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event w/ TM-Plan Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 50 255 45 50 285 50 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 495 100 65 95 65 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)350 385 595 225 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.50 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.31 0.34 0.53 0.20 hd, final value (s)8.32 8.18 7.87 8.86 x, final value 0.81 0.87 1.30 0.55 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)6.3 6.2 5.9 6.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)422 434 595 376 Delay (s/veh)41.31 52.91 311.77 22.59 LOS E F F C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 41.31 52.91 311.77 22.59 LOS E F F C Intersection Delay (s/veh)144.96 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 12:20 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Pre-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Special Event Traffic Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)45 280 150 105 245 35 125 175 60 70 255 55 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 475 385 360 380 Lane Group Capacity 645 580 528 557 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.66 0.68 0.68 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 12.6 12.0 15.3 15.3 Delay Factor k 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.25 Incremental Delay d2 4.4 2.9 3.6 3.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 17.0 14.8 18.9 18.7 Lane Group LOS B B B B Approach Delay 17.0 14.8 18.9 18.7 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 17.3 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 12:22 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event No TM Plan Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)50 255 45 50 285 50 175 325 95 65 95 65 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 350 385 595 225 Lane Group Capacity 647 668 593 469 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.58 1.00 0.48 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 11.0 11.3 18.4 13.8 Delay Factor k 0.14 0.17 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.9 1.2 37.8 0.8 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.9 12.5 56.1 14.6 Lane Group LOS B B E B Approach Delay 11.9 12.5 56.1 14.6 Approach LOS B B E B Intersection Delay 29.4 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 12:25 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event with TM Plan Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)50 255 45 50 285 50 0 495 100 65 95 65 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 350 385 595 225 Lane Group Capacity 647 668 716 332 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.58 0.83 0.68 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 11.0 11.3 16.6 15.2 Delay Factor k 0.14 0.17 0.37 0.25 Incremental Delay d2 0.9 1.2 8.2 5.5 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.9 12.5 24.8 20.7 Lane Group LOS B B C C Approach Delay 11.9 12.5 24.8 20.7 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 18.3 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 12:27 PM Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 45 105 125 70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 45 105 125 70 280 245 175 255 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 280 245 175 255 150 35 60 55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 150 35 60 55 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 987 1,056 1,015 952 802 864 827 771 0.48 0.36 0.35 0.40 0.59 0.45 0.44 0.49 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 6.98 5.35 5.48 6.27 10.79 7.48 7.67 9.12 A A A A B A A A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 Pre-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 475 385 360 380 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 430 Vc,w 345 Vc,n 395 Vc,s 475 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Special Event\Existing\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Pre-Game_Design-Volumes.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 50 50 175 65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50 50 175 65 255 285 325 95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 255 285 325 95 45 50 95 65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 45 50 95 65 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,175 897 1,035 926 971 722 845 748 0.30 0.43 0.57 0.24 0.36 0.53 0.70 0.30 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 4.36 7.00 8.07 5.13 5.79 10.54 13.72 6.87 A A A A A B B A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 Post-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic without Traffic Management Plan Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 350 385 595 225 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 210 Vc,w 550 Vc,n 370 Vc,s 510 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Special Event\Existing\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_No-TM-Plan_Design-Volumes.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 50 50 0 65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50 50 0 65 255 285 495 95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 255 285 495 95 45 50 100 65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 45 50 100 65 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,175 900 1,035 1,064 971 725 845 871 0.30 0.43 0.57 0.21 0.36 0.53 0.70 0.26 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 4.36 6.95 8.07 4.29 5.79 10.44 13.72 5.56 A A A A A B B A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 Post-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic with Traffic Management Plan Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 350 385 595 225 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 210 Vc,w 545 Vc,n 370 Vc,s 335 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Special Event\Existing\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_TM-Plan_Design-Volumes.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Appendix C Capacity and Level of Service Analyses Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period Pre-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Special Event Traffic 2025 Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 55 340 185 130 300 45 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 155 215 75 85 310 70 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)580 475 445 465 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.50 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 Prop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.2 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.52 0.42 0.40 0.41 hd, final value (s)9.65 9.83 9.80 9.78 x, final value 1.55 1.30 1.21 1.26 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)580 475 445 465 Delay (s/veh)537.63 317.73 248.26 289.30 LOS F F F F Approach: Delay (s/veh) 537.63 317.73 248.26 289.30 LOS F F F F Intersection Delay (s/veh)360.18 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:51 PM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event No TM-Plan 2025 Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 60 310 55 60 350 60 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 215 400 115 80 115 80 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)425 470 730 275 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.50 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.38 0.42 0.65 0.24 hd, final value (s)9.08 9.08 9.10 9.71 x, final value 1.07 1.19 1.85 0.74 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)7.1 7.1 7.1 7.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)425 470 730 371 Delay (s/veh)143.84 224.84 791.99 37.86 LOS F F F E Approach: Delay (s/veh) 143.84 224.84 791.99 37.86 LOS F F F E Intersection Delay (s/veh)397.56 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:52 PM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst T Eastwood Agency/Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Analysis Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event w/ TM-Plan 2025 Project ID College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study East/West Street: College Street North/South Street: South 11th Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 60 310 55 60 350 60 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 605 120 80 115 80 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)425 470 725 275 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.50 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.38 0.42 0.64 0.24 hd, final value (s)9.08 9.08 9.03 9.71 x, final value 1.07 1.19 1.82 0.74 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)7.1 7.1 7.0 7.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)425 470 725 371 Delay (s/veh)143.84 224.84 768.61 37.86 LOS F F F E Approach: Delay (s/veh) 143.84 224.84 768.61 37.86 LOS F F F E Intersection Delay (s/veh)387.58 Intersection LOS F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:53 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Pre-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Special Event Traffic 2025 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)55 340 185 130 300 45 155 215 75 85 310 70 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 580 475 445 465 Lane Group Capacity 635 527 470 537 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.90 0.95 0.87 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 14.5 14.4 17.8 16.9 Delay Factor k 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.40 Incremental Delay d2 17.8 18.6 28.5 13.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 32.3 33.0 46.3 30.8 Lane Group LOS C C D C Approach Delay 32.3 33.0 46.3 30.8 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Delay 35.3 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:55 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event No TM Plan 2025 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)60 310 55 60 350 60 215 400 115 80 115 80 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 425 470 730 275 Lane Group Capacity 634 658 569 433 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.71 1.28 0.64 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 12.0 12.4 18.4 14.9 Delay Factor k 0.24 0.28 0.50 0.22 Incremental Delay d2 2.8 3.7 140.3 3.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 14.8 16.1 158.7 18.0 Lane Group LOS B B F B Approach Delay 14.8 16.1 158.7 18.0 Approach LOS B B F B Intersection Delay 70.9 Intersection LOS E Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:57 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game Peak Hour Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Sp. Event with TM Plan 2025 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)60 310 55 60 350 60 0 605 120 80 115 80 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 28.7 G = G = G = G = 23.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 425 470 725 275 Lane Group Capacity 634 658 716 244 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.71 1.01 1.13 Green Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 Uniform Delay d1 12.0 12.4 18.4 18.4 Delay Factor k 0.24 0.28 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 2.8 3.7 36.8 96.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 14.8 16.1 55.1 114.5 Lane Group LOS B B E F Approach Delay 14.8 16.1 55.1 114.5 Approach LOS B B E F Intersection Delay 45.0 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 1:59 PM Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 55 130 155 85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 130 155 85 340 300 215 310 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 340 300 215 310 185 45 75 70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 185 45 75 70 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 915 991 948 872 738 806 768 700 0.63 0.48 0.47 0.53 0.79 0.59 0.58 0.66 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 10.49 6.93 7.10 8.74 20.31 10.68 10.95 14.71 B A A A C B B BLOSUpper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound Vc,s 585 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound Vc,w 425 Vc,n 480 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 525 Va,n Va,s 580 475 445 465 Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic 2025 Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 Pre-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Special Event\2025\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Pre-Game_2025.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 60 60 215 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 60 215 80 310 350 400 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 350 400 115 55 60 115 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 60 115 80 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,134 811 971 844 934 646 788 676 0.37 0.58 0.75 0.33 0.46 0.73 0.93 0.41 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 5.07 10.37 13.97 6.31 7.03 18.95 34.63 8.94 A B B A A C D ALOSUpper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound Vc,s 625 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound Vc,w 675 Vc,n 450 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 255 Va,n Va,s 425 470 730 275 Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic without Traffic Management Plan - 2025 Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 Post-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Special Event\2025\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_No-TM-Plan_2025.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 60 60 0 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 60 0 80 310 350 605 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 350 605 115 55 60 120 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 60 120 80 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,134 818 971 1,003 934 652 788 816 0.37 0.57 0.75 0.27 0.46 0.72 0.92 0.34 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 5.07 10.18 13.73 4.94 7.03 18.44 33.59 6.63 A B B A A C D ALOSUpper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound Vc,s 410 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound Vc,w 665 Vc,n 450 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 255 Va,n Va,s 425 470 725 275 Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic with Traffic Management Plan - 2025 3 ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 13, 2008 Post-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Special Event\2025\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_TM-Plan_2025.xls Printed On: 6/13/2008 Appendix D Mitigation Measures Appendix D Mitigation Measures Special Event Traffic SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game No TM Plan Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Ex. Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)50 255 45 50 285 50 175 325 95 65 95 65 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 23.4 G = G = G = G = 28.6 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 350 385 595 225 Lane Group Capacity 528 543 738 597 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.71 0.81 0.38 Green Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay d1 15.1 15.4 13.3 10.0 Delay Factor k 0.24 0.27 0.35 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 3.1 4.3 6.6 0.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.2 19.7 19.9 10.4 Lane Group LOS B B B B Approach Delay 18.2 19.7 19.9 10.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 18.1 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 2:44 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game w/ TM Plan Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year Ex. Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)50 255 45 50 285 50 0 495 100 65 95 65 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 23.4 G = G = G = G = 28.6 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 350 385 595 225 Lane Group Capacity 528 543 879 532 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.71 0.68 0.42 Green Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay d1 15.1 15.4 12.1 10.3 Delay Factor k 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 3.1 4.3 2.1 0.5 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 18.2 19.7 14.2 10.8 Lane Group LOS B B B B Approach Delay 18.2 19.7 14.2 10.8 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 16.0 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/13/2008 2:46 PM Appendix D Mitigation Measures Estimated 2025 Special Event Traffic SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Pre-Game Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)55 340 185 130 300 45 155 215 75 85 310 70 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 23.4 G = G = G = G = 28.6 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 580 475 445 465 Lane Group Capacity 519 383 629 666 v/c Ratio 1.12 1.24 0.71 0.70 Green Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay d1 18.3 18.3 12.4 12.3 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.26 Incremental Delay d2 75.9 128.5 3.7 3.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 94.2 146.8 16.1 15.5 Lane Group LOS F F B B Approach Delay 94.2 146.8 16.1 15.5 Approach LOS F F B B Intersection Delay 70.6 Intersection LOS E Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 11:14 AM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game No TM Plan Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)60 310 55 60 350 60 215 400 115 80 115 80 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 23.4 G = G = G = G = 28.6 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 425 470 730 275 Lane Group Capacity 517 539 713 555 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.87 1.02 0.50 Green Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay d1 16.4 16.9 15.7 10.8 Delay Factor k 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 10.3 14.5 39.9 0.7 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 26.7 31.5 55.6 11.5 Lane Group LOS C C E B Approach Delay 26.7 31.5 55.6 11.5 Approach LOS C C E B Intersection Delay 36.8 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 11:15 AM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game w/ TM Plan Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (vph)60 310 55 60 350 60 0 605 120 80 115 80 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 23.4 G = G = G = G = 28.6 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 425 470 725 275 Lane Group Capacity 517 539 880 434 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.87 0.82 0.63 Green Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay d1 16.4 16.9 13.5 11.8 Delay Factor k 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.21 Incremental Delay d2 10.3 14.5 6.4 3.0 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 26.7 31.5 19.9 14.8 Lane Group LOS C C B B Approach Delay 26.7 31.5 19.9 14.8 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Delay 23.6 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 12:03 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Pre-Game + EB & WB LT Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume (vph)55 340 185 130 300 45 155 215 75 85 310 70 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 26.7 G = G = G = G = 25.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 55 525 130 345 445 465 Lane Group Capacity 396 630 219 697 530 588 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.83 0.59 0.49 0.84 0.79 Green Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay d1 9.8 14.7 12.6 11.9 15.5 15.1 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.37 0.18 0.11 0.37 0.34 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 9.4 4.3 0.6 11.5 7.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 10.0 24.1 16.9 12.4 27.0 22.3 Lane Group LOS B C B B C C Approach Delay 22.7 13.6 27.0 22.3 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Delay 21.4 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 11:42 AM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game No TMP + EB & WB LT Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume (vph)60 310 55 60 350 60 215 400 115 80 115 80 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 20.7 G = G = G = G = 31.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 60 365 60 410 730 275 Lane Group Capacity 215 509 218 538 788 616 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.72 0.28 0.76 0.93 0.45 Green Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.52 0.52 Uniform Delay d1 14.2 17.1 14.2 17.5 13.3 8.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.31 0.44 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.7 4.8 0.7 6.4 16.9 0.5 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 15.0 21.9 14.9 23.8 30.1 9.5 Lane Group LOS B C B C C A Approach Delay 20.9 22.7 30.1 9.5 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Delay 23.2 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 11:57 AM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period Post-Game TMP + EB & WB LT Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 Sp. Event Mitigation Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume (vph)60 310 55 60 350 60 0 605 120 80 115 80 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 18 8 0 14 6 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.5 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 20.7 G = G = G = G = 31.3 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 60 365 60 410 725 275 Lane Group Capacity 215 509 218 538 963 531 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.72 0.28 0.76 0.75 0.52 Green Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.52 0.52 Uniform Delay d1 14.2 17.1 14.2 17.5 11.3 9.4 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.12 Incremental Delay d2 0.7 4.8 0.7 6.4 3.4 0.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 15.0 21.9 14.9 23.8 14.7 10.3 Lane Group LOS B C B C B B Approach Delay 20.9 22.7 14.7 10.3 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Delay 17.4 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 11:57 AM Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 60 60 195 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 60 195 80 310 350 360 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 350 360 115 55 60 105 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 60 105 80 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,134 851 971 858 934 682 788 688 0.37 0.55 0.68 0.32 0.46 0.69 0.84 0.40 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 5.07 9.32 11.17 6.16 7.03 16.16 23.29 8.68 A A B A A C C A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 16, 2008 Post-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic without Traffic Management Plan - 2025 + 10% NB Reduction Project Description: College & 11th Intersection Improvements Study Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 425 470 660 275 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 255 Vc,w 615 Vc,n 450 Vc,s 605 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Mitigation Measures\Special Event\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_No-TM-Plan_2025.xls Printed On: 6/16/2008 Page 1/1 Analyst:Intersection: Agency/Co.:Jurisdiction: Date Performed:Analysis Year: Time Period: Volume and Capacity Input EB WB NB SB 60 60 0 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 60 0 80 310 350 545 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 350 545 115 55 60 110 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 60 110 80 Approach Flow Computation Circulating Flow Computation Capacity Computation EB WB NB SB 1,134 858 971 1,003 934 688 788 816 0.37 0.55 0.67 0.27 0.46 0.68 0.83 0.34 Delay & LOS Computation Analysis Time Period =0.25 hr EB WB NB SB 5.07 9.16 11.01 4.94 7.03 15.76 22.70 6.63 A A B A A C C A ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS T. Eastwood Morrison-Maierle, Inc. TH Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h June 16, 2008 Post-Game Peak Hour College Street / South 11th Avenue City of Bozeman Special Event Traffic with Traffic Management Plan - 2025 + 10% NB Reduction 3 Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h LT Traffic RT Traffic Volume, veh/h PHF Flow Rate, veh/h Approach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h) Va,e Va,w Va,n Va,s 425 470 655 275 Circulating Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h) Vc,e 255 Vc,w 605 Vc,n 450 Vc,s 410 Delay (s/veh)Upper Bound Lower Bound LOS Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower BoundCapacity (veh) v/c Ratio Upper Bound Lower Bound N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Roundabout Analyses\Mitigation Measures\Special Event\College-Street_South-11th-Avenue_Post-Game_TM-Plan_2025.xls Printed On: 6/16/2008 Appendix D Mitigation Measures Estimated 2025 Weekday Traffic SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period AM Peak - DHV Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 + EB & WB LT Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume (vph)40 200 210 125 270 45 65 155 30 30 450 50 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 25 10 0 20 10 0 15 10 0 15 10 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.6 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 25.3 G = G = G = G = 26.7 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 40 410 125 315 250 530 Lane Group Capacity 390 574 271 658 677 703 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.71 0.46 0.48 0.37 0.75 Green Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay d1 10.5 14.4 12.5 12.6 11.1 13.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.31 Incremental Delay d2 0.1 4.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 4.6 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 10.6 18.6 13.7 13.1 11.4 18.5 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B Approach Delay 17.9 13.3 11.4 18.5 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 15.9 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 12:34 PM SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Agency or Co.Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Date Performed 6/13/2008 Time Period PM Peak - DHV Intersection College / S 11th Ave Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2025 + EB & WB LT Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume (vph)85 365 75 45 350 40 110 280 85 85 180 50 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 25 10 0 20 10 0 15 10 0 15 10 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N -2 Y Y -3 Y N -2 N Y 3 N Parking/Hour 20 6 12 2 Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 15.6 13.5 18.0 16.5 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 25.3 G = G = G = G = 26.7 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 85 440 45 390 475 315 Lane Group Capacity 328 619 250 663 702 578 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.71 0.18 0.59 0.68 0.54 Green Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay d1 11.3 14.3 10.9 13.3 13.2 12.2 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.18 0.25 0.15 Incremental Delay d2 0.4 3.8 0.3 1.4 2.6 1.1 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 11.7 18.1 11.2 14.7 15.8 13.3 Lane Group LOS B B B B B B Approach Delay 17.1 14.4 15.8 13.3 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 15.4 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 6/16/2008 12:35 PM Appendix E Intersection Improvement Alternatives Appendix F Present Worth Analysis Page 1/1 Present Worth Analyses W. College St. & S. 11th Ave. Traffic Control Alternatives Prepared For: The City of Bozeman Annual Cost Present Worth 46,795.22$ 440,000.00$ 9,300.00$ 87,444.82$ 42,500.00$ 399,613.43$ Annual Cost Present Worth 74,446.95$ 700,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 18,805.34$ 11,000.00$ 103,429.36$ Net Present Worth (Total Present Worth Minus Annual Savings)($864,604.10) 2Crash costs are based on a reduction in right-angle crashes from current trends and utilizing a cost of $100,000 for injury related crashes and $4,000 for property damage only crashes. 4Crash costs are based on reductions in right-angle and a limited number of rear-end crashes from current trends and utilizing a cost of $100,000 for injury related crashes and $4,000 for property damage only crashes. 3Operation and maintenance costs are based on expenses for supplied energy to intersection lighting as well as pavement marking and roadway signage maintenance. 1Operation and maintenance costs are based on expenses for supplied energy, pavement marking and roadway signage maintenance, equipment (controller, detectors, signal indications, etc.) maintenance, and replacement costs for video detectors. Analysis timeframe (years)15 Total Present Worth (Sum of Present Worth Values for Costs)$916,261.38 94,026.69$ 1,780,865.48$ Annual interest rate for analyses 6.50% Traffic Signal Alternative 149,502.43$ 1,668,973.72$ 15,900.00$ 10,000.00$ 189,400.00$ Estimated initial cost of construction Estimated annual costs for operation/maintenance1 Estimated annual costs due to crashes2 Estimated annual fuel consumption costs during the AM and PM peak hours Annual savings and benefits to travelers during the AM and PM peak hours Annual interest rate for analyses Analysis timeframe (years) Roundabout Alternative Item 6.50% 15 Total Present Worth (Sum of Present Worth Values for Costs)$1,076,560.68 177,500.00$ Net Present Worth (Total Present Worth Minus Annual Savings)($592,413.04) Item Estimated initial cost of construction Estimated annual costs for operation/maintenance3 Estimated annual costs due to crashes2 Estimated annual fuel consumption costs during the AM and PM peak hours Annual savings and benefits to travelers during the AM and PM peak hours N:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Benefit-Cost_Analysis.xls Printed On: 6/25/2008 Page 1/4Annual Fuel Consumption Cost AnalysisW. College St. & S. 11th Ave. Traffic Control AlternativesPrepared For: The City of BozemanAverage Total Total Vehicle Fuel Usage Total Fuel Estimated Daily Total Total EstimatedDelay Vehicles Delay Per Hour Consumed Fuel Cost Estimated AnnualApproach(s/veh)(vph)(hrs)(gal)(gal)Per GallonFuel CostFuel CostEB11.8 340 1.11 1.00 1.11 $4.00$4.461,159.02$ WB12.3 334 1.14 1.00 1.14 $4.00$4.561,186.81$ NB12.9 184 0.66 1.00 0.66 $4.00$2.64685.71$ SB17.13961.881.001.88$4.00$7.521,956.24$ EB13.4 396 1.47 1.00 1.47 $4.00$5.901,532.96$ WB11.1 327 1.01 1.00 1.01 $4.00$4.031,048.58$ NB15.7 360 1.57 1.00 1.57 $4.00$6.281,632.80$ SB14.12360.921.000.92$4.00$3.70961.31$ EB17.9 450 2.24 1.00 2.24 $5.60 $12.533,257.80$ WB13.3 440 1.63 1.00 1.63 $5.60$9.102,366.81$ NB11.4 250 0.79 1.00 0.79 $5.60$4.431,152.67$ SB18.55302.721.002.72$5.60$15.253,965.58$ EB17.1 525 2.49 1.00 2.49 $5.60 $13.973,630.90$ WB14.4 435 1.74 1.00 1.74 $5.60$9.742,533.44$ NB15.8 475 2.08 1.00 2.08 $5.60 $11.673,035.36$ SB13.33151.161.001.16$5.60$6.521,694.42$ 2,208.41$ 1,776.81$ 919.19$ 2,960.91$ 2,581.93$ 1,791.01$ 2,334.08$ 1,327.86$ 15,900.20$ 15,900.00$ (Rounded to Nearest Hundred Dollars)2025 AM2025 PMTraffic Signal AlternativeEBWBNBAnalysis CaseExisting AMExisting PMSBAverage AM Annual Fuel CostPer ApproachEBWBNBSBAverage PM Annual Fuel CostPer ApproachAverage Annual Fuel Cost for IntersectionN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Benefit-Cost_Analysis.xlsPrinted On: 6/25/2008 Page 2/4Annual Fuel Consumption Cost AnalysisW. College St. & S. 11th Ave. Traffic Control AlternativesPrepared For: The City of BozemanAverage Total Total Vehicle Fuel Usage Total Fuel Estimated Daily Total Total EstimatedDelay Vehicles Delay Per Hour Consumed Fuel Cost Estimated AnnualApproach(s/veh)(vph)(hrs)(gal)(gal)Per GallonFuel CostFuel CostEB8.1 340 0.77 1.00 0.77 $4.00$3.06795.60$ WB5.5 334 0.51 1.00 0.51 $4.00$2.04530.69$ NB4.5 184 0.23 1.00 0.23 $4.00$0.92239.20$ SB7.73960.851.000.85$4.00$3.39880.88$ EB6.4 396 0.70 1.00 0.70 $4.00$2.82732.16$ WB6.8 327 0.62 1.00 0.62 $4.00$2.47642.37$ NB7.8 360 0.78 1.00 0.78 $4.00$3.12811.20$ SB62360.391.000.39$4.00$1.57409.07$ EB14.6 450 1.83 1.00 1.83 $5.60 $10.222,657.20$ WB7.3 440 0.89 1.00 0.89 $5.60$5.001,299.08$ NB5.4 250 0.38 1.00 0.38 $5.60$2.10546.00$ SB13.85302.031.002.03$5.60$11.382,958.11$ EB9.7 525 1.41 1.00 1.41 $5.60$7.922,059.63$ WB10.5 435 1.27 1.00 1.27 $5.60$7.111,847.30$ NB13.6 475 1.79 1.00 1.79 $5.60 $10.052,612.71$ SB8.23150.721.000.72$5.60$4.021,044.68$ 1,726.40$ 914.88$ 392.60$ 1,919.49$ 1,395.90$ 1,244.84$ 1,711.96$ 726.87$ 10,032.94$ 10,000.00$ Average AM Annual Fuel CostPer ApproachAverage PM Annual Fuel CostPer ApproachExisting AMExisting PM2025 AM2025 PMRoundabout AlternativeAnalysis CaseEBWBNBSBAverage Annual Fuel Cost for Intersection(Rounded to Nearest Hundred Dollars)EBWBNBSBN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Benefit-Cost_Analysis.xlsPrinted On: 6/25/2008 Page 3/4Annual Traveler Savings and Benefits AnalysisW. College St. & S. 11th Ave. Traffic Control AlternativesPrepared For: The City of BozemanDelay Savings vs.Total Total Delay EstimatedAll-Way Stop Vehicles Savings Average Estimated Total Estimated TotalApproach(s/veh)(vph)(hrs)Hourly IncomeDaily SavingsAnnual SavingsEB8.8 340 0.83 $7.75 $6.441,674.69$ WB9.6 334 0.89 $7.75 $6.901,794.69$ NB2.2 184 0.11 $7.75 $0.87226.58$ SB10.33961.13$7.75$8.782,283.00$ EB20.3 396 2.23 $7.75 $17.314,499.50$ WB14.3 327 1.30 $7.75 $10.072,617.32$ NB13.6 360 1.36 $7.75 $10.542,740.40$ SB5.22360.34$7.75$2.64686.89$ EB82.7 450 10.34 $11.75 $121.4731,581.06$ WB92.1 440 11.26 $11.75 $132.2734,389.12$ NB20.3 250 1.41 $11.75 $16.564,306.70$ SB168.153024.75$11.75$290.7975,605.31$ EB192.7 525 28.10 $11.75 $330.2085,851.86$ WB106.8 435 12.91 $11.75 $151.6339,424.78$ NB142.4 475 18.79 $11.75 $220.7757,400.06$ SB37.23153.26$11.75$38.259,944.03$ 16,627.88$ 18,091.91$ 2,266.64$ 38,944.15$ 45,175.68$ 21,021.05$ 30,070.23$ 5,315.46$ 177,512.98$ 177,500.00$ (Rounded to Nearest Hundred Dollars)Traffic Signal AlternativeEBWBAverage Annual Traveler Savings for IntersectionAnalysis CaseExisting AMExisting PM2025 AM2025 PMNBSBAverage AM Annual TravelerSavings Per ApproachAverage PM Annual TravelerSavings Per ApproachNBSBEBWBN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Benefit-Cost_Analysis.xlsPrinted On: 6/25/2008 Page 4/4Annual Traveler Savings and Benefits AnalysisW. College St. & S. 11th Ave. Traffic Control AlternativesPrepared For: The City of BozemanDelay Savings vs.Total Total Delay EstimatedAll-Way Stop Vehicles Savings Average Estimated Total Estimated TotalApproach(s/veh)(vph)(hrs)Hourly IncomeDaily SavingsAnnual SavingsEB12.5 340 1.18 $7.75 $9.152,378.82$ WB16.4 334 1.52 $7.75 $11.793,065.93$ NB10.6 184 0.54 $7.75 $4.201,091.68$ SB19.73962.17$7.75$16.794,366.51$ EB27.3 396 3.00 $7.75 $23.276,051.05$ WB18.6 327 1.69 $7.75 $13.093,404.34$ NB21.5 360 2.15 $7.75 $16.664,332.25$ SB13.32360.87$7.75$6.761,756.86$ EB86 450 10.75 $11.75 $126.3132,841.25$ WB98.1 440 11.99 $11.75 $140.8836,629.45$ NB26.3 250 1.83 $11.75 $21.465,579.62$ SB172.853025.44$11.75$298.9277,719.20$ EB200.1 525 29.18 $11.75 $342.8889,148.72$ WB110.7 435 13.38 $11.75 $157.1740,864.44$ NB144.6 475 19.08 $11.75 $224.1858,286.85$ SB42.33153.70$11.75$43.4911,307.32$ 17,610.03$ 19,847.69$ 3,335.65$ 41,042.85$ 47,599.88$ 22,134.39$ 31,309.55$ 6,532.09$ 189,412.14$ 189,400.00$ Existing PM2025 AM2025 PMAverage AM Annual TravelerSavings Per ApproachRoundabout AlternativeAnalysis CaseExisting AMEBWBNBSBAverage Annual Traveler Savings for Intersection(Rounded to Nearest Hundred Dollars)EBWBNBSBAverage PM Annual TravelerSavings Per ApproachN:\0417\056\Design Docs\Calcs\Benefit-Cost_Analysis.xlsPrinted On: 6/25/2008