Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 - Traffic Impact Study - Cattail Creek Ph I TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE I BOZEMAN,MONTANA MARCH 21, 2002 D,AVID J. CRAWFORD 8709 INTRODUCTION Accompanying the preliminary plat submittal for Phase I of the Cattail Creek Subdivision, a traffic report was submitted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated June 12, 2000. This report summarized the traffic impact analysis for Gallatin Center and Cattail Creek Subdivision. That report showed impacts from both proposed subdivisions on the intersections along the North 19`h Avenue corridor. Unfortunately, that report characterized the traffic generated by both Phases I and H of Cattail Creek Subdivision. Table 2 in the Kimley-Horn report shows the summary of land uses and A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips generated. The summary shows multi-family, office, business park and single-family trips. Phase I of Cattail Creek Subdivision only accounts for approximately half of these trips. Kimley-Horn did reduce the total number of trips by 25%, based on trip reductions, due to the multiple use nature of both subdivisions. For purposes of this new report, we will reduce the trips by 10%, in order to be conservative. The purpose of this new, revised report is to accurately account for the trips generated by Phase I only, of Cattail Creek Subdivision. We will then superimpose those trips on the existing conditions. The final result is a level of service analysis for each major impacted intersection, including the intersections of Valley Center and Catron Street; Valley Center and North 19t'Avenue; and Burke Street with North 19t' Avenue. In this report, we have shown that Deadman's Gulch need not be constructed during Phase I of this subdivision in order to convey the traffic to the necessary outlet streets. The minimum level of service attained at each intersection is level of service "C." As a result of this report, we are requesting the City of Bozeman modify Condition No. 9 of the Cattail Creek Phase I Findings of Fact to allow secondary access from Davis Lane via Cattail Street. Cattail Street is being constructed as part of Phase I as a collector street, with a 42-foot wide back-of-curb to back-of-curb dimension. EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to arrive at year 2002 traffic volumes, we used the information for the year 2000 from the Kimley-Horn report and increased those numbers by 3.5%per year. We made an allowance for lots 9 and 10 of Gallatin Center Subdivision. Half of the projected traffic from lots 9 and 10, as projected in the Kimley-Horn report, has been assumed to be existing. This is due to the fact that Bob Wards has been constructed but Michael's has not. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in the Appendix show the existing conditions for year 2002 as described above. CATTAIL CREEK PHASE I TRAFFIC GENERATION Phase I of Cattail Creek Subdivision includes 13.28 acres of M-1 lots. M-1 allows for light industrial and a number of retail uses. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) Trip Generation Manual, we estimated the total number of trips in the morning and evening peak hours, from this business park and light industrial land use. The R-O lots comprise 18.4 acres. For this analysis, we have assumed 50% would be 2 office and 50% would apartments, which are also allowable under the zoning. City of Bozeman zoning does not allow the office traffic to exceed the residential allowance in R-O zoning. For the apartment uses, we assumed 27 dwelling units per acre, which is based on a 3-story building. The R-3 lots were based upon 18 dwelling units per acre over the 10.11 acres. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 summarize the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips generated from the various land uses described herein. The table below summarizes the trips generated by the Cattail Creek Phase I project: Leaving Cattail Phase I R-O Total Toward M-1 Office Apt. R-3 Total Catron* ANi 34 6 92 83 214 182 PM 183 68 68 41 360 306 Entering Cattail Phase I AM 192 48 48 21 309 263 PM 52 22 95 79 248 211 *Assume 15% will use Davis Lane (85% use Catron). In our analyses, a 10% trip reduction was used. Kimley-Horn report took a 25%reduction for trip reductions. In order to accurately account for the distribution of traffic from the subdivision, we reviewed the Kimley-Horn report and made several assumptions. Those assumptions are listed below: Assumptions: • 15% of Cattail Creek Phase I traffic uses Davis Lane • From Kimley-Horn traffic report, existing conditions in the last two years have increased in traffic 3.5% per year 0 Lots 9 and 10 have not been fully developed as of today. Bob Wards has but Michaels has not. Half of the projected traffic from the Kimley-Horn traffic report has been assumed. • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50% of trips to Cattail Creek will use Burke and 50% of trips will use Valley Center. • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50% of trips leaving Cattail Creek will use Burke and 50% will use Valley Center. • Of the trips that are turning onto Valley Center from Catron Street, 90% are turning right towards Bozeman and 10% are turning left towards Belgrade. This agrees with the Kimley-Horn report. • Of the trips that are turning onto Catron Street off of Valley Center 10% are coming from Belgrade and 90% are coming from Bozeman (same reason as above). • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50% of trips turning off of Valley Center onto North 19''will turn right and the other 50% will turn left. 3 • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50% of trips turning onto Valley Center off of North 19`h are southbound on North 19ffi and 50% are northbound. • It has been assumed that trips from the rest area are insignificant. • It has been assumed that 100% of traffic coming to Cattail that turns onto Burke will be northbound on North 19th. Exhibits 7 though 10 in the Appendix summarize the distribution of traffic based on the assumptions described above. Each of these intersections was then analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software HCS 2000 Release 4.1 for the signalized and un-signalized intersections. The results of those analyses are summarized in the table below: Year 2002 Background plus Cattail Creek Phase I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Valley Center and Catron 10.8 B 12.5 B North 19`h and Valley Center 27.2 C 22.7 C North 19'b and Burke 17.9 C 14.8 B Summaries of the input data are included as exhibits 11,12 and 13 in the Appendix. The outputs from the analyses are also included in the Appendix for the reader's review. CONCLUSION In all cases the requirements of the City of Bozeman Subdivision Section 16.18.050.D.7.d(3) have been met. This requires that street and intersection level of service "C" shall be the design and operational objective and under no conditions will level of service "D" be accepted. All arterial and collector streets and movements on intersection approach legs, designated as arterial or collector streets, shall operate at a minimum of level of service "C." This means that Deadman's Gulch does not need to be constructed in order for this phase of the subdivision to operate within the requirements set forth by the City of Bozeman subdivision regulations. Construction of Cattail Street, from Phase I of Cattail Creek Subdivision to Davis Lane, will provide the secondary and emergency access that was intended by the plat conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact. J:\1998\B98-07\Traffic\ImpctAnal.doc 4 Assumptions: • 20% of Cattail Creek traffic uses Davis Lane • From existing traffic report: Existing conditions in the last two years have increased in traffic 3.5%per year • Lots 9 and 10 have not been fully developed as of today. Bob Wards has but Michaels has not. Half of the projected traffic from the existing traffic report has been assumed. • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 75% of trips to Cattail Creek will use Burke and 25% of people will use Valley Center. • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50%of trips leaving Cattail Creek will use Burke and 50%will use Valley Center. • Of the trips that are turning onto Valley Center from Catron Street, 75% are turning right towards Bozeman and 25%are turning left towards Belgrade. This is higher than the Kimley-Horn report (90%Bozeman and 10%Belgrade), but we believe due to the nature of the commercial construction mainly in retail, that a higher percentage of trips will be coming from Belgrade with its more affordable housing. The location of this commercial district also makes it more attractive to live in Belgrade from an ease of access standpoint. • Of the trips that are turning onto Catron Street off of Valley Center 25% are coming from Belgrade and 75% are coming from Bozeman. (same reason as above) • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50% of trips turning off of Valley Center onto North 19t'will turn right and the other 50%will turn left. • Both in the A.M. and the P.M. it has been assumed that 50% of trips turning onto Valley Center off of North 19f'are nouthbound on North 19'and 50% are northbound. • It has been assumed that trips from the rest area are insignificant. • It has been assumed that 100%of the 75%of traffic coming to Cattail that turns onto Burke will be northbound on North 19th. LOS Valley Center and Catron: AM: B PM: C Valley Center and North 19a': AM: C PM: C Burke and North 19`h: AM: C PM: D APPENDIX �Xi�T7/yG Gf)No�TiO�✓r Zovo I7 A lV� $www www LO O N �I I� i. N N N N N N == ZI = Z'77 �_. 147 2,4 ;U 15& i 4M 5Z¢ AAA cn F- 7 7Z—� www -�Y 27� _ xxx G c CD N I.71- T T 231 — ?�7 N CV CV , N N�N R 4 7� 1-c i e�t c-4-c k6i t Sr �, �"�• Sad ,�, �� u8-7 W W -a _ g _ _ r �) U!Vl'A O N M a a a ~' /1 Zy6 132 ~nn (el' 1!/!s ��H/B.T �n�9'i"�!i�/�v ,✓awl T,�'.9��i�' /.+/ Zao / /P'GT�'2 ..��,.t C`/3 k/f)?ZO S N/CD 13��N Ti�E✓,ELDPEU . f,' S D� Ta A�fY �ir/L y �oI3 V✓'9.2D S Jl ffS Ij���/ D ✓ic`¢a <D • CG T_S 9 e%/O) >./ /�7�D�T o.✓ Ta: �.JCd•EA-> iNr�esT � ,8��� 3a,�,✓y C-AIR.RIF.I.101 1 1—4✓ie IfEEi✓ GO/V-frv<GT---J Ta'Tfll "Ba8 /✓.�i.ZJ>;S� -L, I�sJn/,L' � JU�/�t/% Cf/:����vo5 /S s/c.-r��/G.�7Ly .s�,�/l�� T�.�✓... /h/G /?uTzj-'cS� o� T /S S 'G'zo /T hl/LL IIE A���i°� fc 01:7 d.�'r�3C5' � T,��J3S • fie Rt/I Z;/r ti 7 AV 13, �/: �9� Fes.sri.✓c .= .��5/ t Z�� = go l - sau-f!i /�ru✓11 5 H��T N / 9 Satyr aay.✓a .eT- / = G 1 1? M N /�� ��1sr.vc so-rtiTi�'8ou.✓�� 3a 6 �- /6/ = S/�� � �/,E,rT �✓ /S �XiSr�✓6 3364- S96 = 73Z ill /7 L2 S. IT �Y — 3�a = i9, N /g¢ W.C. 4EAelB /T 40- 7 1, .+ 4- h�p--yyt ��f �3'ei�-GYS/ �� /i �'f` I� �i�2�C'� Lt bKl icy!✓`?.I( w Iw w -ovv�i� Z5 Jo V x=z 1 N f00 n(n N _ � 6''0-ep Z�/• N�r N N N N N a Am rm lr� (ZZ7a) 572- I -7 4� /dry _ Ig_ 4 a Qom= Ail) W W w Doo O N r CM It (7 /,�2==7 O �� N N N J N N U2, A/t/t Fv4fe 2-7 &LI AG Z�c >e 2`7= : 4 emu : Am PFeUL bz,-- /✓1 C34'�I�vJ) PN1 rid - lt(jo, 1 W W WWW o N N et TT T N N Fri, aaT T/iP �er,tic1,yU F- LL 1 W lL j LLI S S S U)Cf) c 70 L. O N C C� r GPI CIJ NNN t �1v0 I Z4- A2 Ise , Ih w Yw Flo CV �rC N N N 11}�N \ i C— po,3 �5 I Am F- L 1 LLI LL J LLI= / 2S U)N 0 \ ono LO. o N 1 N N cmC i N I / Zi¢ 2q ��o) 37 A,v /nj d U) LU LU �za N � N �� -jiN 12 OtJcs� C -r`rAIL, IY = Z76 05 o) -73 ll8 Z00 ZG ncn(n J _Sol Z 1 Z �AA wInW COO IZ3 0a0 N r r r 2 N N C� .74- (�-r-rAl L 1) N N cm / _�z G `/fi_ eo \ QQ 2 7-7 IG'7 1q 2 124 i �C4171T (Z s24 w w w wow xrl N V)c RCN N N N 10-1 N N N 2-7'7 A1.1 ZQ- �i l7- I�I 3 (o oh Ls -T I 'zoo9 Qjbl 37 1 F- LU IL LLI LLI LL1 LLJ YZ2 wN(n 000 r N ANN, �r r (V N N N'cm C a 11 8 Z_ jig IQ � �t �2 r VALLEY CENTER AND CATRON TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite 1nfQjm4 _ ` Analyst David Crawford Intersection Valley Center and Catron 14 Agency/Co. Bozeman/MT Jurisdiction Date Performed 3115102 Analysis Year B98-07 Analysis Time Period A.M. Project ID East/West Street: Valley Center North/South Street: Catron Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 291 16 123 59 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 291 16 123 59 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 0 92 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 92 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Confi uration L R LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R LR v (vph) 123 8 92 0 C (m) (vph) 1265 382 745 0 v/c 0.10 0.02 0.12 95% queue length 0.32 0.06 0.42 Control Delay 8.2 14.6 10.5 LOS A B B F Approach Delay -- -- 10.8 Approach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University or Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k6153.TMP 3/21/02 - / __r ---- --- - ..-0- _ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information (Site Information Analyst David Crawford Intersection Valley Center and Catron Agency/Co. Bozeman/MT Jurisdiction Date Performed 3115102 Analysis Year B98-07 Analysis Time Period P.M. Project ID East/West Street: Valley Center North/South Street: Catron Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 138 22 243 277 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 138 22 243 277 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound 77 Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 40 0 291 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 0 291 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) I 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R LR Delay, Queue Len th and Level-of Services Approach EB I WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 I 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R LR v (vph) 243 40 291 0 C (m) (vph) 1432 224 903 0 v/c 0.17 0.18 0.32 95% queue length 0.61 0.65 1.42 Control Delay 8.0 24.6 10.9 LOS A C B F Approach Delay -- -- 12.5 Approach LOS -- -- B HCS2000Ttyl Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k2011.TMP 3/21/02 VALLEY CENTER AND N. 19TH AVENUE INPUT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst David Crawford Intersection Valley Center and N. 19th Agency or Co. Bozeman/MT Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3115102 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Analysis Year B98-07 Intersection Geometry Grade= 0 0 i 0 _ I I Grade= Show Ntxth Arrow i o R- I o I 0 = L 1 i 1 0 = T R Grade= 0 I 1 1 I I = LT - LR Grade= 0 11 ' = LTR 1 1 0 Volume and Timing Input -- - --- EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) i09 314 102 247 524 65 % Heavyveh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 10.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 10.90 0.90 10.90 Actuated (P/A) P P P I P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 1_1 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 Ped volume 0 0 0 Bicycle volume Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NS Perm 07 08 Timing G = 54.0 G = G = I G = G = 14.0 G = 67.0 G = G = __]Y= 2.0 Y= Y= I Y= I Y I Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs) = 1.00 lC cle Length C= 139.0 HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\s2kF174.TMP 3/21/02 HCS2000 : Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Analyst: David Crawford Inter. : Valley Center and N. 19th Agency: Bozeman/MT Area Type: All other areas Date: 3/15/02 Jurisd: Period: AM Year B98-07 Project ID: E/W St: Valley Center N/S St: North 19th SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 I LGConfig L R L T TR Volume 1109 314 102 247 524 65 Lane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vol 1 30 0 Duration 1 . 00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left P NB Left P P Thru Thru P P Right P Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left Thru Thru P Right Right P P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right P 3B Right WB Right Green 54 . 0 14 . 0 67 . 0 Yellow 2 . 0 2 . 0 X11 Red 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Cycle Length: 139 . 0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s ) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 701 1805 0 . 17 0 . 39 28 . 4 C 24. 3 C IR 813 1615 0 .39 0 . 50 22 . 7 C Westbound Northbound L 211 1805 0 . 54 0 . 58 30 . 9 C T 1107 1900 0 . 25 0 . 58 14 . 7 B 19 . 4 B Southbound TR 902 1872 0 . 73 0 . 48 33 . 9 C 33 . 9 C Intersection Delay = 27 . 2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS2000 : Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Tim Cummings ['homas , Dean & Hoskins, Inc . 1200 25th St S Great Falls, MT Phone: (406) 761-3010 Fax: E-Mail : tdandh@mcn.net OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst : David Crawford igency/Co. : Bozeman/MT Jate Performed: 3/15/02 Analysis Time Period: AM .ntersection: Valley Center and N. 19th ,rea Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: -analysis Year: B98-07 ?roject ID: East/West Street North/South Street Valley Center North 19th VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R I L T R L T R Volume I109 314 1102 247 524 65 % Heavy Vehj0 0 10 0 0 0 PHF 10 . 90 0 . 90 10 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 .90 PK 15 Vol 130 87 1 28 69 146 18 Hi Ln Vol I j % Grade 1 0 0 0 Ideal Sat 11900 1900 11900 1900 1900 f ParkExist NumPark Vo. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 ! 1 1 0 0 1 0 LGConfig L R L T TR Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 i RTOR Vol 30 0 Adj Flow 121 316 1113 274 654 I %InSharedLn ?rop LTs 11 . 000 ?rop RTs ' 0 . 000 0 . 110 Peds Bikes 0 0 1 0 3uses 0 0 10 0 0 1InProtPhase Duration 1 . 00 Area Type: All other areas OPERATING PARAMETERS Eastbound Westbound ! Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R i L T R L T R � f � Init Unmet 10 . 0 0 . 0 10 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Arriv. Type13 3 13 3 3 Unit Ext . 13 . 0 3 . 0 13 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 I Factor ( 1 . 000 I 1 1 . 000 1 . 000 Lost Time � 2 . 0 2 . 0 I 12 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 Ext of g f2 . 0 2 . 0 J2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 Ped Min g PHASE DATA Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left P NB Left P P Thru Thru P P Right P Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left Thru Thru P Right Right P P Peds Peds TB Right EB Right P SB Right WB Right Green 54 . 0 14 . 0 67 . 0 ellow 2 . 0 2 . 0 ,11 Red 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Cycle Length: 139 . 0 secs VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW WORKSHEET tTolume Adjustment Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R olume, V 109 314 1102 247 524 65 rHF 0 . 90 0 . 90 10 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 Adj flow 121 316 1113 274 582 72 fo . Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T TR Adj flow 121 316 1113 274 654 rop LTs � 1 . 000 .'rop RTs 0 . 000 0 . 110 ' Saturation Flow Rate (see Exhibit 16-7 to determine the adjustment factors) Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LG L R L T TR So 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 JfW 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 IfHV 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 fG 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 �fp 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 IfBB 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 fA 1 . 00 1. 00 1 . 00 1. 00 1 . 00 IfLU 1 . 00 1. 00 1. 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 �fRT 0 . 850 1. 000 0 . 985 fLT 0 . 950 0 . 950 1. 000 1 . 000 Sec . 0 . 058 fLpb 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 fRpb 1. 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 S 1805 1615 1805 1900 1872 Sec . 110 CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Capacity Analysis and Lane Group Capacity Adj Adj Sat Flow Green --Lane Group-- Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio Eastbound Prot Perm Left L 121 1805 0 . 07 0 .39 701 0 . 17 Prot Perm Thru Right R 316 1615 # 0 . 20 0 .50 813 0 . 39 Westbound Prot Perm Left Prot Perm Thru Right Northbound Prot 113 1805 0 . 06 0 . 086 156 0 . 72 Perm 0 110 0 . 00 0 .496 55 0 . 00 Left L 113 0 .58 211 0 . 54 Prot Perm Thru T 274 1900 0 . 14 0 . 58 1107 0 .25 Right 3uthbound Prot Perm Left Prot Perm Thru TR 654 1872 # 0 . 35 0 .48 902 0 .73 Right lum of flow ratios for critical lane groups , Yc = Sum (v/s) = 0 . 55 jotal lost time per cycle, L = 2 . 00 sec Critical flow rate to capacity ratio, Xc = (Yc) (C) / (C-L) = 0 . 55 Control Delay and LOS Determination Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Group Approach (Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del Grp v/c g/C dl Fact Cap k d2 d3 Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 0 . 17 0 . 39 27 . 9 1 . 000 701 0 . 50 0 . 5 0 . 0 28 .4 C 24 . 3 C R 0 . 39 0 . 50 21 . 3 1 . 000 813 0 . 50 1 . 4 0 . 0 22 .7 C Westbound Northbound L 0 . 54 0 . 58 21 . 1 1 . 000 211 0 . 50 9 . 7 0 . 0 30 .9 C r 0 .25 0 . 58 14 . 1 1 . 000 1107 0 . 50 0 . 5 0 . 0 14 .7 B 19 .4 B 5outhbound TR 0 . 73 0 . 48 28 . 7 1 . 000 902 0 . 50 5 . 2 0 . 0 33 . 9 C 33 . 9 C Intersection delay = 27 . 2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C ?rrors exist. See bottom of report. SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for exclusive lefts Input EB WB NB SB Cycle length, C 139 . 0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) 81 . 0 'Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g (s) 69 . 0 Opposing effective green time, go (s) 67 . 0 Number of lanes in LT lane group, N 1 Number of lanes in opposing approach, No 1 Adjusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) 113 Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT 1 . 000 Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo 0 . 00 Adjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) 654 Lost time for LT lane group, tL 2 . 00 Computation LT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 4 .36 Opposing lane util . factor, fLUo 1 . 00 1 . 00 )pposing flow, Volc=VoC/ [3600 (No) fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) 25 .25 gf=G[exp (- a * (LTC ** b) ) ] -tl, gf<=g 0 . 0 )pposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) 1 . 00 )pposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max [l-Rpo (go/C) , 0] 0 . 52 gq, (see Exhibit C16-4, 5 , 6, 7, 8) 28 . 80 Tu=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf 40 .20 i=Max(gq-gf) /2 , 0) 14 . 40 PTHo=1-PLTo 1 . 00 "L*=PLT [1+ (N-1) g/ (gf+gu/EL1+4 .24) ] 1 . 00 MI (refer to Exhibit C16-3 ) 2 .40 EL2=Max( (1-Ptho**n) /Plto, 1 . 0) fmin=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g 0 . 06 :di f f=max (gq-g f, 0) 0 . 00 ,m= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1. 00) 0 . 06 flt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [1+PL (EL1-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [l+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1 . 00) 'r flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** .weft-turn adjustment, fLT 0 . 058 or special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, ee text. * If Pl>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations . * For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach -;r when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for shared lefts Input EB WB NB SB Cycle length, C 139 . 0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) ' Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g (s) Opposing effective green time, go (s) Number of lanes in LT lane group, N Number of lanes in opposing approach, No Adjusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo Adjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) Lost time for LT lane group, tL Computation LT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 Opposing lane util . factor, fLUo 1 . 00 1 . 00 Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/ [3600 (No) fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) gf=G [exp (- a * (LTC ** b) ) ] -tl, gf<=g Opposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[1-Rpo (go/C) , 0] gq, . (see Exhibit C16-4, 5, 6, 7, 8) gu=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max(gq-gf) /2 , 0 ) PTHo=1-PLTo PL*=PLT [1+ (N-1)g/ (gf+gu/EL1+4 .24) ] EL1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3 ) EL2=Max( (1-Ptho**n) /Plto, 1 . 0 ) fmin=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g gdi f f=max (gq-g f, 0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [l+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1. 00) flt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [l+PL (ELl-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [l+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1. 00) or flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** Left-turn adjustment, fLT For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text . * If Pl>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations . ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE EFFECTS WORKSHEET Permitted Left Turns EB WB NB SB Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) Conflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) Pedestrian flow rate, Vpedg (p/h) OCCpedg Opposing queue clearing green, gq (s) Eff . ped. green consumed by opp. veh. queue, gq/gp OCCpedu Opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) OCCr Number of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn ApbT Proportion of left turns, PLT Proportion of left turns using protected phase, PLTA Left-turn adjustment, fLpb Permitted Right Turns Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s ) Conflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) Conflicting bicycle volume, Vbic (bicycles/h) Vpedg OCCpedg Effective green, g (s) Vbicg OCCbicg OCCr Number of cross-street receiving lanes , Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn ApbT Proportion right-turns, PRT Proportion right-turns using protected phase, PRTA Right turn adjustment, fRpb SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT Cycle length, C 139 . 0 sec Adj . LT vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v 113 v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X 0 . 54 Protected phase effective green interval, g (s) 12 . 0 Opposing queue effective green interval, gq 28 . 80 Unopposed green interval, gu 40 . 20 Red time r= (C-g-gq-gu) 58 . 0 Arrival rate, qa=v/ (3600 (max[X, 1 . 0] ) ) 0 . 03 Protected ph. departure rate, Sp=s/3600 0 . 501 Permitted ph. departure rate, Ss=s (gq+gu) / (gu*3600) 0 . 05 XPerm 1 . 03 XProt 0 . 37 Case 3 Queue at beginning of green arrow, Qa 1 . 88 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu 0 . 90 Residual queue, Qr 0 . 06 Uniform Delay, d1 21. 1 DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE Initial Dur. Uniform Delay Initial Final Initial Lane Appr/ Unmet Unmet Queue Unmet Queue Group Lane Demand Demand Unadj . Adj . Param. Demand Delay Delay Group Q veh t hrs . ds d1 sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Intersection Delay 27 . 2 sec/veh Intersection LOS C BACK OF QUEUE WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LaneGroup L R IL T I TR Init Queue 0 . 0 0 . 0 I ; 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 Flow Rate 121 316 1113 274 654 So 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 No.Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 SL 1805 1615 11805 1900 1872 LnCapacity 701 813 1156 1107 902 Flow Ratio 0 . 07 0 . 20 10 . 06 0 . 14 0 . 35 v/c Ratio 0 . 17 0 . 39 10 . 72 0 . 25 0 . 73 Grn Ratio 0 . 39 0 . 50 10 . 58 0 . 58 0 . 48 I Factor 1 . 000 1 1 . 000 1. 000 AT or PVG 13 3 13 3 3 Pltn Ratio 1. 00 1 . 00 1. 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 11 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 11 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 PF2 1 . 00 1 . 00 11 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 Q1 3 . 1 7 . 5 I 14 . 3 5 . 2 20 .2 kB 11 .2 1 . 3 f1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 4 Q2 0 .3 0 . 8 13 . 6 0 . 5 3 . 8 Q Average 3 . 3 8 . 4 17 . 9 5 . 7 24 . 1 Q Spacing Q Storage Q S Ratio 70th Percentile Output: fB% 11 .3 1 .2 11 .2 1 .2 1 . 2 BOQ 14 . 1 10 .2 1 I9 . 6 7 . 0 28 . 9 QSRatio 5th Percentile Output : fB% 11 . 6 1. 5 J 11 . 5 1. 5 1 .4 BOQ � 5 . 2 12 .2 1 111. 5 8 . 5 33 . 7 QSRatio 90th Percentile Output: fB% ; 1 . 8 1 . 6 11 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 5 BOQ 15 . 8 13 .4 1 112 . 6 9 . 5 36 . 2 QSRatio 95th Percentile Output: fB% + 2 . 1 1. 8 j 11 . 8 1 . 9 1. 6 BOQ I7 . 0 15 . 0 1 114 .2 11 . 0 38 . 7 QSRatio 98th Percentile Output: fB% 12 .5 2 . 0 12 . 0 2 .2 1. 7 BOQ 18 .2 16. 6 115 . 8 12 . 4 41. 2 QSRatio ERROR MESSAGES South bound right is shared but does not move with the adjacent movement . INPUT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information'. Analyst David Crawford Intersection Valley Center and N. 19th Agency or Co. Bozeman/MT Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3115102 Jurisdiction Time Period P.M. Analysis.Year B98-07 Geometry Grade= 0 0 1 0 I I 1 I Grade= 5+hDw North Am w it = i I i y 1 I 0 I(f r = R I 0 _ _ 0 - L 0 _ T R r Grade= 0 I I I t—� = LT I �-1— = L R !-' Grade= 0 '1/1� = L T R 1 1 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 179 223 379 596 326 139 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 3 3 3 3 3 __d Ped volume 0 0 0 Bicycle volume Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 1 0 1 Ho . O Ped timing 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 EB Only 02 03 I 04 NS Perm NS Perm 07 08 Timing G = 29.O� G = IG = G = 32.0 G = 43.0 G = IS I Y= Y�Y= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 1.00 Cycle Length C = 107.0 HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\s2kF368.TMP 3/21/02 HCS2000 : Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Analyst: David Crawford Inter. : Valley Center and N. 19th Agency: Bozeman/MT Area Type: All other areas Date: 3/15/02 Jurisd: Period: P.M. Year B98-07 L*j Project ID: E/W St : Valley Center N/S St: North 19th SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 LGConfig L R L T TR Volume 179 223 379 596 326 139 Lane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vol 1 10 1 1 0 i Duration 1 . 00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 ( 5 6 7 8 EB Left P NB Left P P Thru Thru P P Right P Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left Thru Thru P Right Right A P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right A :3B Right WB Right Green 29 . 0 32 . 0 43 . 0 Yellow 1. 0 2 . 0 k11 Red 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Cycle Length: 107 . 0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 489 1805 0 . 41 0 .27 34 . 5 C 21. 8 C �R 936 1615 0 .25 0 . 58 11 .2 B Westbound Northbound L 577 1805 0 . 73 0 . 70 33 . 7 C T 1332 1900 0 . 50 0 . 70 8 . 7 A 18 . 4 B Southbound TR 733 1823 0 .70 0 .40 32 . 5 C 32 . 5 C Intersection Delay = 22 . 7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS2000 : Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Jim Cummings Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc . 1200 25th St S 3reat Falls, MT Phone: (406) 761-3010 Fax: E-Mail : tdandh@mcn.net OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: David Crawford kgency/Co. : Bozeman/MT Jate Performed: 3/15/02 Analysis Time Period: P.M. =ntersection: Valley Center and N. 19th area Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: lnalysis Year: 398-07 )roject ID: East/West Street North/South Street Valley Center North 19th VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound J L T R L T R L T R J L T R J iVolume 179 223 379 596 J 326 139 . 1% Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 I 0 . 90 0 . 90 PK 15 Vol 50 62 I 105 166 91 39 Hi Ln Vol J % Grade 0 0 0 Ideal Sat 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 ParkExist NumPark Vo. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 I 0 1 0 -GConfig L R L T TR Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vol 10 J J 0 kdj Flow 199 237 I 1421 662 J 516 dLn%InShare J ?rop LTs 11 . 000 ?rop RTs J J 0 . 000 0 .298 Peds Bikes 0 0 ( 0 Buses 0 0 10 0 0 sInProtPhase J J Duration 1 . 00 Area Type: All other areas OPERATING PARAMETERS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T - R L T R L T R J Init Unmet 0 . 0 0 . 0 10 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Arriv. Type 3 3 13 3 3 Unit Ext . 3 . 0 3 . 0 13 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 I Factor 1 . 000 1. 000 1. 000 Lost Time 2 . 0 2 . 0 12 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 Ext of g 2 . 0 2 . 0 12 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 Ped Min g PHASE DATA Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 3B Left P NB Left P P Thru Thru P P Right P Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left Thru Thru P Right Right A P Peds f Peds TB Right EB Right A I SB Right WB Right Green 29 . 0 32 . 0 43 . 0 "ellow 1 . 0 2 . 0 nll Red 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Cycle Length: 107 . 0 secs VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW WORKSHEET olume Adjustment Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R l olume, V 179 223 1379 596 326 139 PHF 0 . 90 0 . 90 10 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 -,dj flow 199 237 1421 662 362 154 o . Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 I 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T f TR "dj flow 1199 237 1421 662 516 rop LTs 11. 000 I Prop RTs 1 0 . 000 0 .298 ' Saturation Flow Rate (see Exhibit 16-7 to determine the adjustment factors) Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LG L R L T TR So 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 fW 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 fHV 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1. 000 fG 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 fp 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 fBB 1 . 000 1 . 000 1. 000 1. 000 1 . 000 fA 1 . 00 1. 00 1. 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 r 'fLU 1 . 00 1. 00 1 . 00 1. 00 1 . 00 IfRT 0 . 850 1. 000 0 . 960 fLT 0 . 950 0 . 950 1 . 000 1 . 000 'Sec . 0 . 089 fLpb 1 . 000 1. 000 1. 000 1 . 000 fRpb 1. 000 1. 000 1 . 000 S 1805 1615 1805 1900 1823 Sec . 169 CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Capacity Analysis and Lane Group Capacity Adj Adj Sat Flow Green --Lane Group-- Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio Eastbound Prot Perm Left L 199 1805 # 0 . 11 0 .27 489 0 . 41 Prot Perm Thru Right R 237 1615 0 . 15 0 . 58 936 0 . 25 Nestbound Prot Perm Left Prot Perm Thru Right Northbound Prot 421 1805 # 0 . 23 0 .280 506 0 . 83 Perm 0 169 0 . 00 0 .421 71 0 . 00 Left L 421 0 .70 577 0 . 73 Prot Perm Thru T 662 1900 0 . 35 0 .70 1332 0 . 50 Right ;outhbound Prot Perm Left Prot Perm Thru. TR 516 1823 # 0 .28 0 .40 733 0 . 70 Right -um of flow ratios for critical lane groups, Yc = Sum (v/s) = 0 . 63 otal lost time per cycle, L = 5 . 00 sec Critical flow rate to capacity ratio, Xc = (Yc) (C) / (C-L) = 0 . 66 Control Delay and LOS Determination Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Group Approach iLane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del iGrp v/c g/C d1 Fact Cap k d2 d3 Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound "L 0 . 41 0 .27 32 . 0 1 . 000 489 0 . 50 2 . 5 0 . 0 34 . 5 C 21. 8 C -'� 0 . 25 0 . 58 11 . 1 1. 000 936 0 . 11 0 . 1 0 . 0 11 .2 B Westbound Northbound F, 0 . 73 0 . 70 25 . 4 1 . 000 577 0 . 50 8 . 3 0 . 0 33 .7 C P 0 . 50 0 . 70 7 . 3 1 . 000 1332 0 . 50 1 . 3 0 . 0 8 . 7 A 18 . 4 B Nouthbound TR 0 . 70 0 . 40 26 . 7 1 . 000 733 0 . 50 5 . 8 0 . 0 32 .5 C 32 . 5 C Intersection delay = 22 . 7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C ?rrors exist . See bottom of report . SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for exclusive lefts Input EB WB NB SB Cycle length, C 107 . 0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) 75 . 0 Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g (s) 45 . 0 Opposing effective green time, go (s) 43 . 0 Number of lanes in LT lane group, N 1 Number of lanes in opposing approach, No 1 Adjusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) 421 .Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT 1 . 000 Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo 0 . 00 Adjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) 516 Lost time for LT lane group, tL 2 . 00 Computation LT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 12 . 51 Opposing lane util . factor, fLUo 1 . 00 1 . 00 Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/ [3600 (No) fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) 15 .34 gf=G [exp (- a * (LTC ** b) ) ] -tl, gf<=g 0 . 0 Opposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) 1 . 00 Dpposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[1-Rpo (go/C) , 0] 0 . 60 gq, (see Exhibit C16-4, 5, 6, 7, 8) 22 . 95 gu=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf 22 . 05 z=Max (gq-gf) /2 , 0) 11 .47 PTHo=1-PLTo 1 . 00 PL*=PLT [1+ (N-1) g/ (gf+gu/EL1+4 .24) ] 1 . 00 i'L1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3 ) 2 . 11 EL2=Max ( (1-Ptho**n) /Plto, 1 . 0 ) fmin=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g 0 . 09 jdif f=max(gq-gf, 0) 0 . 00 _m= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1 . 00) 0 . 09 flt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [1+PL (EL1-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [1+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1 . 00) )r flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** ,eft-turn adjustment, fLT 0 . 089 -or special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, ;ee text . * If Pl>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations . * For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach ?r when gf>gq, see text . SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for shared lefts Input EB WB NB SB Cycle length, C 107 . 0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) Effective permitted green time for LT lane group, g (s) Opposing effective green time, go (s) Number of lanes in LT lane group, N Number of lanes in opposing approach, No Adjusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) Proportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo Adjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) Lost time for LT lane group, tL Computation LT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 Opposing lane util. factor, fLUo 1 . 00 1 . 00 Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/ [3600 (No) fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) gf=G[exp (- a * (LTC ** b) ) ] -tl, gf<=g Opposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[l-Rpo (go/C) , 0] gq, (see Exhibit C16-4, 5, 6, 7, 8) gu=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max (gq-gf) /2 , 0) PTHo=1-PLTo PL*=PLT [1+ (N-1) g/ (gf+gu/EL1+4 .24) ] EL1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3 ) EL2=Max ( (1-Ptho**n) /Plto, 1. 0) fmin=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g gdiff=max (gq-gf, 0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1 . 00) flt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [1+PL (EL1-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [1+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1 . 00 ) or flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** Left-turn adjustment, fLT For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. * If P1>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>1, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations . k* For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE EFFECTS WORKSHEET Permitted Left Turns EB WB NB SB Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) Conflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) Pedestrian flow rate, Vpedg (p/h) OCCpedg Opposing queue clearing green, gq (s) Eff. ped. green consumed by opp. veh. queue, gq/gp OCCpedu Opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) OCCr Number of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn ApbT Proportion of left turns, PLT Proportion of left turns using protected phase, PLTA Left-turn adjustment, fLpb °ermitted Right Turns Effective pedestrian green time, gp (s) :onflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) conflicting bicycle volume, Vbic (bicycles/h) Vpedg OCCpedg Effective green, g (s) Vbicg OCCbicg )CCr iqumber of cross-street receiving lanes, Nrec Number of turning lanes, Nturn �pbT .'roportion right-turns, PRT Proportion right-turns using protected phase, PRTA light turn adjustment, fRpb SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT Cycle length, C 107 . 0 sec '.dj . LT vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v 421 •/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X 0 . 73 Protected phase effective green interval, g (s) 30 . 0 'lpposing queue effective green interval, gq 22 . 95 unopposed green interval, gu 22 . 05 Red time r= (C-g-gq-gu) 32 . 0 arrival rate, qa=v/ (3600 (max[X, 1 . 0] ) ) 0 . 12 Irotected ph. departure rate, Sp=s/3600 0 . 501 Permitted ph. departure rate, Ss=s (gq+gu) / (gu*3600) 0 . 10 XPerm 2 . 49 :Prot 0 . 48 �_ase 3 Queue at beginning of green arrow, Qa 6 . 89 queue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu 2 . 68 l,esidual queue, Qr 3 . 15 Uniform Delay, d1 25 .4 DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE Initial Dur. Uniform Delay Initial Final Initial Lane Appr/ Unmet Unmet Queue Unmet Queue Group Lane Demand Demand Unadj . Adj . Param. Demand Delay Delay ;Group Q veh t hrs . ds d1 sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec ,Eastbound Westbound \Torthbound Southbound Intersection Delay 22 . 7 sec/veh Intersection LOS C BACK OF QUEUE WORKSHEET Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LaneGrouP L R L T TR :nit Queue 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Flow Rate 199 237 1421 662 I 516 So 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 fo.Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 ;L 1805 1615 1805 1900 1823 LnCapacity 489 936 506 1332 I 733 'low Ratio 0 . 11 0 . 15 0 .23 0 . 35 0 .28 */c Ratio 10 . 41 0 .25 0 . 83 0 . 50 I 0 . 71 Grn Ratio 0 .27 0 . 58 0 . 70 0 . 70 0 . 40 7 Factor 1 . 000 1. 000 1 . 000 .T or PVG 3 3 I 3 3 I 3 Pltn Ratio 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1. 00 1 . 00 � 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 nF2 1. 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1. 00 I 1 . 00 1 4 . 8 3 . 5 11 . 7 9 . 0 ( 12 . 9 kB 0 . 8 0 . 7 1 . 5 1. 6 1 . 0 n2 0 . 5 0 . 2 6 . 5 1. 5 2 . 5 Average 5 . 4 3 . 7 I 18 .3 10 . 6 15 . 4 u Spacing i I n Storage S Ratio /Oth Percentile Output: fB% 1 .2 1 . 2 11 .2 1.2 1 . 2 OQ 6 . 6 4 .4 I 22 . 0 12 . 8 18 . 5 ,�SRatio 5th Percentile Output: fB% 11 . 5 1 . 6 11. 4 1 . 4 j 1 . 4 BOQ I 8 . 1 5 . 8 + 125 . 7 15 .2 21 . 7 QSRatio I I 90th Percentile Output: fB% 1 . 7 1 . 7 I1. 5 1 . 6 1 . 5 IBOQ 9 . 0 6 .4 127 . 6 16 . 5 I 23 .4 QSRatio 95th Percentile Output: fB% 11 . 9 2 . 0 I1. 6 1 . 7 1 . 6 BOQ I 10 . 4 7 .4 129 . 7 18 .2 I 25 .3 QSRatio 98th Percentile Output: fB% 2 . 2 2 . 5 1. 7 1 . 9 1 . 8 BOQ 11 . 9 9 . 1 31 . 8 19 . 9 27 .2 QSRatio ERROR MESSAGES South bound right is shared but does not move with the adjacent movement. N. 19TH AVENUE AND BURKE TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generals Information " i#elnformation Analyst David Crawford Intersection North 19th and Burke Agency/Co. Bozeman MT Jurisdiction Date Performed 3115102 Analysis Year B98-07 Analysis Time Period A.M. I Project ID East/West Street: Burke North/South Street: North 19th Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 VehicleVolUmeS and A4justmentg Major Street I Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 129 349 0 0 842 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 129 349 0 0 842 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 i 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 88 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 j 1.00 j 1.00 HourlyFlow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 129 88 C (m) (vph) 798 366 v/c 0.16 0.24 95% queue length 0.58 0.94 Control Delay 10.4 17.9 LOS B C Approach Delay -- -- 17.9 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f11e:HC:\WIND0WS\TEMP\u2k9011.TMP 3/21/02 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information _ ISite-InformAton' Analyst David Crawford Intersection North 19th and Burke Agency/Co. Bozeman MT Jurisdiction Date Performed 3115102 Analysis Year B98-07 Analysis Time Period P.M. Project ID East/West Street: Burke North/South Street: North 19th Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound I Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 125 975 0 0 549 18 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 125 975 0 0 549 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized T_ 01 1 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Si nal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 166 Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 166 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Delay,.Queu�@ &O:and Leve1.of-Q*y1ice 2 Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L _ R v (vph) 125 166 C (m) (vph) 1015 533 v/c 0.12 10.31 95% queue length 0.42 1.35 Control Delay 9.0 14.8 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 14.8 Approach LOS -- -- B HCS2006TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kA250.TMP 3/21/02