Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Traffic Impact Study - Thulin Condos (Haggerty Lane) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY MONTANA PARTNERS I CONDOMINIUMS HAGGERTY LANE BOZEMAN, MONTANA prepared for EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT, LLC prepared by Q� r A,� ''% i MARVIN & ASSOCIATES y` FQC'RT 12605. 32"d Street West n'a .v 'a •�e� i �U J1 � `' � Billings, MT 59102 ,tilt:3 t�ltcc►l�{� December 2004 P.T.O.E #259 TABLE OF CONTENTS r+� PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Traffic Volumes 4 Traffic Operations 7 Traffic Signal Warrants 8 TRIP GENERATION 9 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 11 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 12 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 14 Traffic Volumes 14 Traffic Operations 17 Traffic Signal Warrants 18 Signalized Traffic Operations 18 IMPACT MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 18 APPENDIX A -TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPENDIX B - CAPACITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEETS LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing (2004) Capacity Analysis Summary 7 Table 2. Montana Partners Condominiums I Trip Generation Summary 9 Table 3. Existing (2004) Plus Site Capacity Analysis Summary 17 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Site Location & Development Access Map 2 Figure 2. Existing (2004) Traffic Volumes 6 Figure 3. Trip Distribution Summary 13 Figure 4. Traffic Assignment Summary 15 Figure 5. Existing (2004) Plus Site Traffic Volumes 16 ii M O NTANA PARTNERS I C ❑ ND ❑ MINIUMS - HAGGERTY LANE TRAFFIC IMPACTS STUDY REPORT INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of a traffic impact study (TIS) completed in for the Montana Partners I Condominiums in Bozeman, MT. Marvin & Associates was retained by Evergreen Management, Inc. to provide the TIS per the requirements of City of Bozeman ordinances pertaining to land use developments which have the potential to impact traffic operations on the surrounding street system. The primary purpose of the study was to address specific impacts of the new development with regard to street system access and circulation and to then provide recommendations regarding the mitigation of any identified impacts. Having reviewed the proposed land use development plan, Marvin & Associates completed an extensive analysis of existing conditions, addressed trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment, and evaluated the resulting capacity and safety impacts, before making recommendations regarding the mitigation of impacts. The study methodology and analysis procedures used in this study employed the most contemporary of analysis techniques, referencing only nationally accepted standards in the areas of site development and transportation impact assessment. Recommendations made within this report are based upon those standards and the professional judgment of the author. SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The development site for this project lies just south of Interstate 90, along Haggerty Lane, near the eastern city limits of Bozeman, MT (see Figure 1, next page). The property to the west of the project site is currently undeveloped, while the Eastedge Meadows Subdivision neighbors to the east. The development plan for Montana Partners Condominiums I proposes the construction of 128 one-bedroom studio apartments. Eight building clusters, Page 1 Obi ,tea iy �r C. a as V I O W 0 O Z � O a Z � � 0 ao ad Zz o ._ Zv v °tee ° �o as L h � N W Page 2 would each house sixteen of the 500 ft2 dwelling units (see Figure 1). Approximately 200 outdoor parking spaces would be available for residents and guests alike. There would be no additional on-site storage or indoor parking structures. Access to the subdivision would be achieved through two approaches to Haggerty Lane (see Figure 1). The approaches would be connected by an internal access road/parking area that would create a loop through the development, to and from Haggerty Lane. The northwest approach would be located in alignment with Ellis Street at the existing intersection of Ellis and Haggerty. The southwest approach is proposed to be located in alignment with an existing driveway approach to a yet-to-be-developed subdivision located across the street. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets &Intersections Adjacent and potentially impacted public streets include: Main Street, Haggerty Lane, Highland Boulevard, and Ellis Street. The junctions of Main Street and Ellis Street with Haggerty, as well as the intersection of Ellis and Highland Boulevard, have the greatest potential for impacts. Main Street is an east-west oriented principal arterial that is also designated as MT Highway 191. Main Street is approximately 85' wide and carries five lanes of traffic at its intersection with Haggerty Lane. Haggerty Lane is a minor arterial street that begins at a "T" intersection with Main Street and extends southeast, intersecting with various arterial and collector �- -- Page 3 streets, before dead-ending near the interstate. At its intersection with Main Street, Haggerty is approximately 36' wide and carries two lanes of traffic. Highland Boulevard is a north-south oriented minor arterial that extends south from a "T" intersection with Main Street, past Ellis Street and Kagy Boulevard, to a dead-end in a residential area approximately 2.1 miles south of Main Street. Highland Boulevard has a paved width of approximately 28' at its intersection with Ellis Street and carries two travel lanes. Ellis Street is an east-west oriented local street that' extends east from a "T" intersection with Old Highland Boulevard, north of Bozeman Deaconess Hospital. Ellis intersects with Highland Boulevard and continues to the east, ending at a "T" intersection with Haggerty Lane. Ellis Street has a paved width that varies between approximately 28' (at the Highland Boulevard intersection) and 36' (at the Haggerty Lane intersection) and carries two lanes of traffic. It was recently improved as a part of adjacent development improvements and had previously been no more than a dirt road. The intersections of Main Street and Ellis Street with Haggerty Lane are currently stop controlled, as is the intersection of Ellis Street with Highland Boulevard. Two-way left-turn lanes on Main Street provide auxiliary storage for left-turns between Main and Haggerty. The Highland Boulevard-Ellis Street intersection provides auxiliary left-turn bays on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches. Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour automatic traffic counts were taken in June and July of 2004 along Main Street, Haggerty Lane, and Ellis Street at various locations. Similar counts along Haggerty Lane, Ellis Street, and Highland Boulevard were taken in AAINU::�' Page 4 November of 2000. Together, the counts provided hourly variations, which were used to determine the peak hour and to provide base volumes for turning movement projections. Summaries of the counts can be found in Appendix A of this report. The highest hourly volumes were found to occur between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. The resulting peak pm hour volumes comprised approximately 11.7% of the average daily traffic (ADT) traveling eastbound on Main, 7.8% westbound on Main, 9.3% (both directions) on Haggerty, 9.9% northbound on Highland, 6.6% southbound on Highland, and 10.1% (both directions) on Ellis. Figure 2, on the following page, presents existing (2004) pm design hour turning movement volumes at all of the potentially impacted area intersections. Design hour volumes were calculated from turning movement counts taken on various days in January and June of 2004. Raw count data was adjusted according to factors for daily and monthly variations to represent existing design hour volumes. Figure 2 also depicts corridor ADTs estimated from automatic counts and turning movement volumes. Pedestrian activity was found to be insubstantial throughout the influence area of the project and was therefore not indicated on the turning movement diagrams. Bicycle traffic was found to be substantially less than 1% of all traffic. Currently, there is no existing mass transit system in Bozeman, although Montana State University does run its Bobcat Transit system for students during the spring and fall semesters. However, neither of Bobcat Transit's routes come into close proximity to the project site and would therefore not represent a feasible means of transportation for its prospective residents. Heavy truck traffic along Main Street was estimated at approximately 2%, while along Haggerty Lane and Ellis Street, it was found to be negligible. Truck traffic on Highland Boulevard was determined to be less than 1% of total traffic. AOIINU�' Page 5 0 a ,tea Ly Ir 0 0 E OLO r lzt CL N v L F- Im •c 0 Q� CD a • Lo Lo N `N Im a N_� �� •� o ^LOM 8700 d ��J cn a W AANUZ�l Page 6 Traffic Operations PM peak hour capacity calculations were conducted for each of the potentially impacted area intersections. Unsignalized intersection capacities were evaluated for the intersections of Main Street and Ellis Street with Haggerty Lane, as well as for the junction of Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street, using HCS 2000 software. Table 1 below presents existing (2004) pm design hour capacity calculation results for each of the potentially impacted intersections. Measures of effectiveness in the table include control delay (s/veh), level of service (LOS), volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, and 95% queue length (vehicles). Capacity calculation results revealed that the northbound approach of Haggerty Lane to Main Street currently operates at a LOS "F" during the pm design hour, with an average control delay of approximately 50.2 seconds/vehicle, and a 95% queue length of 5.6 vehicles. All other approach movements at all three intersections currently operate at or above an acceptable LOS "C" during the pm design hour. Observations made during the pm peak hour period indicate that capacity calculation results are representative of actual conditions. Capacity calculation worksheets for existing and impacted conditions can be found in Appendix B of this report. Table 1. Existing (2004)Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NB SB EB WB Movement LR T TR L T .Main,Street Control Delay(s/veh) 50.2 - 9.8 and Los F - - A VIC Ratio 0.76 - 0.06 Haggerty Lane Queue Length 95% 5.6 - - 0.2 Movement LP TR LT Haggerh,Lane Control Delay(s/veh) 9.5 7.5 and LOS A A VIC Ratio 0.03 0.00 Ellis Street Queue Length 95% 0.1 - 0.0 Movement L TR L TR L TR L T R Highland Boulevard Control Delay(s/veh) 7.9 - 8.2 24.3 13.6 16.4 and LOS A - A c B c VIC Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.22 Ellis Street Queue Length(95%) 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.8 AING�, Page 7 Traffic Signal Warrants The eight signal warrants contained within the Millennium Edition Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were applied to the intersection of Main Street with Haggerty Lane under existing (2004) traffic demand conditions for the purpose of determining the current necessity for signalized traffic control. Appendix C of this report contains a representative traffic signal warrant worksheet for the intersection. The following warrants were found to be met under existing (2004) conditions: Warrant#1, Eight-hour Vehicular Volumes— Although the speed limit on Main Street is posted at 35 mph west of the Haggerty Lane intersection, it is likely that 85th percentile speeds are more representative of the 45 mph limit that is posted to the east. Therefore, the 70% warrant volumes represent the required minimums for Warrant #1. During the eighth highest traffic hour, under warrant condition B, which states that major street volumes are "so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay," existing volumes were found to comprise 143.7% of the required minimum minor leg volume. Warrant#2, Four-hour Vehicular Volumes— Similarly, during the fourth highest traffic hour, the minor leg volume was found to comprise 245.0% of the required minimum value. Warrant #3, Peak Hour— For the peak hour warrant, Category B requirements, which consider the peak hour minor street approach volume in relation to the major street volume, were satisfied in warranting a signal based upon existing traffic volumes. The minor street volume was found to comprise 248.0% of the required 70% warranting minimum. ANU�, Page 8 Warrant#8, Roadway Network—The roadway network warrant may be justified when the concentration and organization of traffic is necessary on a roadway network. It states that the need for a traffic control signal shall'be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or more of a list of criteria which is based upon entering volumes and the functional classification of each route. For the intersection of Main Street with Haggerty Lane, the warrant was met at 147.2% of the minimum entering volume criteria. TRIP GENERATION Table 2 below presents a summary of trip generation projections made for Montana Partners Condominiums I. Within the table, trip generation rates and resulting trip projections for the average weekday and the pm peak hour are illustrated. Trip generation calculations for the development were based upon the specific land use information that was provided by Evergreen Management, Inc. Trip generation rates were taken from ITE's Trip Generation Report, 7th Edition. ITE land use code 220, representing apartments, was used to predict generation rates for the proposed development. Average rates were applied to the independent variable of dwelling units instead of the linearly regressed equations, because they resulted in trip projections more representative of the one-bedroom studio apartments intended for this development. Table 2. Montana Partners Condominiums I Trip Generation Summary Average Weekday Peak PM Hour Total Total Land Use Number Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Enter Exit Code 220-Apartment 128 DUs 6.72" 860 0.62" 79 51 28 The gross number of average weekday trips (AWT) for the development was projected to be approximately 860. The p.m. peak period would account for approximately 79 of those trips, with 65% entering (51 trips) and 35% exiting (28 trips) the development. Page 9 Subdivisions that include residential development typically produce pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, in addition to personal vehicular trips. However, the effect of such trips on traffic operations for surrounding streets and intersections is minimal in most cases. Therefore, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips can often be considered negligible in terms of their impacts and can be removed from the generated trip total that is applied to the external system. The removal of such trips is usually done through the application of a flat percentage to the trip total that is based upon observations made during manual counts. In the case of Montana Partners Condominiums I, because of the lack of close-proximity commercial development and/or other attractor-type facilities, pedestrian trip activity would likely be minimal. Also, because Bozeman does not currently have a public transit system relevant to this site, no trips could be attributed to transit. In terms of bicycle traffic, the location of the development would not lend itself to a substantial amount of bicycle traffic to or from either the University or any significant employment generators. Therefore, in this case, no reductions in external trips were made for pedestrian, bicycle, or transit trips. In addition, a reduction can typically be made for trips amongst land uses within subdivisions, or to and from neighboring subdivisions that are connected internally through local streets. These trips would be part of the total trip generation number, but would not have origins or destinations external to the development site, and as such, would not have an impact on the traffic network external to the development. Said trips are known as "Internal Capture Trips" (ICT). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook contains information regarding procedures for estimating ICTs. However, in the case of Montana Partners Condominiums I, because no commercial development exists either within the subdivision, or in a neighboring subdivision that could be accessed without the use of Haggerty Lane, ICTs were deemed negligible for the purposes of this study. Page 10 Similarly, a third reduction can sometimes be made for trips made by motorists with alternative primary destinations. Such diverted trips are known as "passerby trips", as they do not represent "new" trips within the traffic stream. For example, if a development contained an attractor such as a fast-food restaurant, a motorist on his or her way to some other destination may make an impulse decision to stop at that attractor, even though their primary destination was not in that particular development. Because that motorist would have made the trip on the link that passes by the subdivision regardless of stopping at the secondary attractor, the trip cannot be considered new to the system and the secondary attractor would not be responsible for the trip. The ITE Trip Generation Report provides methods for estimating passerby trips for a variety of facilities. In this case, because there would be no significant passerby trip attractors (restaurants, retail stores, etc.) included in the development, passerby trips would be negligible. As no reductions could be made for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, internal capture, or passerby trips, the net number of "nevi' trips that would be added into the traffic stream, as a result of the construction of Montana Partners Condominiums I, would equal the gross totals indicated in Table 2. TRIP DISTRIBUTION There are various methods available for determining the directional distribution of trips to and from site developments. For developments within a large urbanized area, the task is best accomplished through the creation of a computerized transportation model of the urban street system, which includes the proposed development changes. When the creation of a model is not feasible, realistic estimates can be made by calculating the distribution of existing traffic volumes on the surrounding street system. The existing distribution can then be applied to newly generated trips, with concessions made based upon the likely trip origins and destinations associated with the particular development land use or Paae 11 uses. For Montana Partners Condominiums I, a distribution was developed based upon existing volumes and an area of influence method, which considers the least travel time routing to major trip attractors with the community. In result, approximately 62% of net "new" trips were assigned to Haggerty Lane, west of the development. Conversely, only 1% of trips were attributed to Haggerty Lane, east of the development. The remaining 37% of trips were assigned to Ellis Street. From Haggerty Lane and Ellis Street, trips were then disseminated to Main Street, 1-90, and Highland Boulevard proportionately, based upon existing traffic patterns. Figure 3, on the following page, shows a graphical summary of the projected directional trip distribution. TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The assignment of site traffic to a development's street system and site access points is dependent upon several factors. Two such factors are external directional distribution and localized operational site conditions (i.e., the subdivision layout of streets). Distribution proportions are used to provide traffic access demand estimates. The estimates represent traffic movements to and from the site that would occur if street operations and internal site circulation had no effect on the direction of arrival or departure, other than in relation to the chosen access point. A traffic distribution model provides an unconstrained estimate of directional travel demand that can be further refined through the calculation of potential travel times within the sites and at ingress and egress points. The combined calculation of demand and least time accessibility are then used to estimate likely movement volumes at each individual access point. Turning movements at each access point can then be calculated through the application of primary and passerby distributions to full development vehicular trip generation totals. For Montana Partners Condominiums I, the two aforementioned external access points would serve to distribute traffic to and from the development, by way of AGIU�, Page 12 a w ,tea i �r 0 a I � 0 o p M \° L N L N� CN ol 0 co M t-► CD a l0 0 �I►`°' o M t N y W Page 13 Haggerty Lane. Figure 4 on the following page illustrates the results of pm design hour and average weekday site-generated trip assignment for the subdivision's external access points and all of the potentially impacted area intersections. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Volumes Traffic volume impacts for site developments can be quantified simply by determining the change in traffic volumes expected at various points within the surrounding network of streets. Site traffic assignments give an indication of what volume of traffic could potentially be added to the street system during the average weekday (AWT). Yet the percent change in AWT can only be used to identify general locations where impacts could be significant, as opposed to the time frame. It is the determination of volume changes during peak traffic flow periods that provides specific information on the type and location of impacts that could potentially occur. In almost all cases, it is very difficult to determine AWT on any section of street to within 10% accuracy. Thus, impact analyses on streets with relative percentage increases less than 10% are not normally considered critical. Figure 5, on page 16, illustrates the assignment of full development site traffic to the surrounding street system and the relative volumes that would result if Montana Partners Condominiums I existed today. Figure 5 also illustrates existing plus site traffic AWTs and percentage increases along key area corridors. Several area street sections were projected to be significantly (by 10% or more) influenced by site development traffic, including Haggerty Lane, south of Main Street (12%) and west of Ellis Street (24%), and Ellis Street, south of Haggerty Lane (70%). Page 14 0 a ,tea 0 Ia CL � cc n� � � o cc Y ro N � o � V a� vale a' ~ ; 0 LL 0 M = 284 CL CN N H W Page 15 a y y X W Q� ai p �r N m Q C L �' 1 o O + O\ 00 w O I Vv,V .,,—ww �I ° O 0 o N Vale W LM Lo 0 Ct ` N_/ Imo ✓ y 1 r a 00 9000[3%] M r- t N N W Page 16 Traffic Operations Table 4 below presents a summary of existing year (2004) capacity calculation results for the subdivision access points and potentially impacted area intersections, with site-generated traffic included in the analysis. MOEs again include control delay, level of service (LOS), v/c ratio, and vehicle queue length. Calculation results showed that the addition of site-generated traffic would not bring about any substantial degradation in operational efficiency for any individual movements at any of the potentially impacted area intersections. This includes the Haggerty Lane - Ellis Street intersection, which would become a four-way intersection with the addition of a subdivision access approach as the fourth, southbound leg. Additionally, the intersection created by the southeast subdivision access's approach to Haggerty Lane, which in effect operates as a "T" intersection because the opposing approach currently accesses a vacant subdivision, would operate acceptably during the design hour in terms of level of service. Note that he northbound approach of Haggerty Lane to Main Street would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS "F", during the pm design hour, regardless of the addition of site-generated traffic. Capacity calculation worksheets for existing design hour plus site conditions can be found in Appendix B of this report. Table 3. Existing (2004) Plus Site Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NB SIB EB WB Movement LR T TR L T slain Street Control Delay(slveh) 74.7 - - 9.9 - C117d LOS F - - A - V/C Ratio 0.89 - - 0.07 - Haggerty Lane Queue Length 95910 7.7 - - 0.2 - Movement LTR LTR LTR LTR Haggerty Lane Control Delay(slveh) 10.2 9.7 7.4 7.5 and LOS B A A A VIC Ratio 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 Ellis Street Queue Length 95% 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Movement L I TR L TR L TR LTR Highland Bonlevard Control Delay(slveh) 7.9 - 8.2 - 24.7 14.0 17.3 and LOS A - A - c B c VIC Ratio 0.00 - 0.02 - 0.30 0.03 0.26 Ellis Street Queue Length 95510 0.0 - 0.1 - 1.2 0.1 1.0 Movement LR LT TR Haggertv Lane Control Delay(slveh) 8.8 7.4 - and LOS A A - VIC Ratio 0.02 0.02 - South Access Road Queue Length 95% 0.1 0.1 - AINU-1, Page 17 Traffic Signal Warrants It was previously shown that four of the eight MUTCD traffic signal warrants are met under existing traffic volume demand conditions for the intersection of Main Street with Haggerty Lane. That list of currently met warrants includes all of the warrants, which could be directly affected by the addition of site-generated traffic volumes to the intersection. As such, a traffic signal warrant analysis for existing plus site conditions was not necessary. Also, none of the other potentially impacted intersections realized a degradation in level of service that would require a plus site analysis of traffic signal warrants. Signalized Traffic Operations A signalized capacity calculation was performed for the intersection of Main Street with Haggerty Lane, without any geometric improvements, using the SigCinema 2000 software package. Calculation results showed that the intersection would operate acceptably under existing pm design hour traffic volume demands, with a substantial amount of reserve capacity. The intersection as a whole would operate at a LOS "A", with 8.5 seconds/vehicle of average intersection delay, and a v/c ratio of 0.39. All individual approach movements would operate at or above a LOS "B". Appendix B contains a signalized capacity calculation worksheet for the intersection of Haggerty and Main. IMPACT MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS As it is currently proposed, the development of Montana Partners Condominiums I would have an effect on corridor traffic volumes and intersection turning movements at several locations in the surrounding area. Corridor increases in AWT as high as 70% could be expected as a result of the addition of site- generated traffic to the system. However, the addition of site-generated traffic would not cause any substantial degradation in LOS at any of the potentially impacted area intersections, although the Haggerty Lane — Main Street Page 18 intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS "F" during the pm design hour. The analysis of traffic signal warrants for Haggerty and Main showed that the consideration of a signal is warranted, regardless of the development of Montana Partners Condominiums I, based upon four of the eight MUTCD warrants. Therefore, Evergreen Management, Inc. should not be required to compensate for the total expense of these improvements. A proportionate share of costs based on site-generated versus existing entering traffic volume demand would be the most equitable means of funding the improvements. Such an arrangement, based upon trip generation figures projected through the course of this study, would hold the developer responsible for approximately 3.2% of total improvement costs. The subsequent analysis of signalized capacity for the Main Street-Haggerty Lane intersection showed that, without any geometric improvement to the intersection, the implementation of a signal would allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service during the pm design hour, with a substantial amount of reserve capacity for future growth. The addition of subdivision access approaches and traffic to Haggerty Lane would further intensify interactions between thru and turning vehicles on the mainline and its various approaches. As such, a double solid yellow line should be incorporated along Haggerty Lane in the area of the access approaches to prohibit passing maneuvers. The no-passing zone should extend in both directions from each approach an appropriate distance based upon current geometric design standards. Page 19 From the foregoing analysis it is concluded that, although Montana Partners Condominiums I would substantially increase area traffic volumes, there would be no significant impacts to capacity for any of the potentially impacted area intersections. In addition, both of the proposed approaches to Haggerty Lane would operate in an acceptable manner in terms of level of service. In terms of the signalization of the Main Street-Haggerty Lane intersection, Evergreen Management, Inc. should not be held financially responsible for all of the improvement costs associated with the construction of a signal, as the signal is currently warranted under existing traffic volume demands. Page 20 APPENDIX A-TRAFFIC VOLUMES Main Street -West of Haggerty Lane Eastbound Hour June 30, 2004 July 1, 2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Weekday Weekday 1 18 18 0.2% 2 10 10 0.1% 3 19 19 0.3% 4 29 29 0.4% 5 32 32 0.4% 6 163 163 2.2% 7 268 268 3.6% 8 361 361 4.8% 9 348 348 4.6% 10 368 368 4.9% 11 408 408 5.4% 12 532 532 7.1% 13 562 562 7.5% 14 520 520 6.9% 15 579 579 7.7% 16 644 674 659 8.8% 17 875 875 11.7% 18 508 508 6.8% 19 380 380 5.1% 20 310 310 4.1% 21 245 245 3.3% 22 156 156 2.1% 23 83 83 1.1% 24 58 58 0.8% Total 3259 4891 7491 100% 14.0% 12.0°r° ....--••.................................•--------...............................................................---............... f 10.0% ........ ...................... - ... 8.0% ................................---....... . ... ,{ r ... ME ............................................................ : 4.0/o ,. ................... AN. : 2.0% { 'f ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Main Street- East of Haggerty Lane Westbound Hour June 30, 2004 July 1,2004 July 2,2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Fri Weekday Weekday 1 23 17 20 0.3% 2 17 22 20 0.3% 3 15 14 15 0.2% 4 19 20 20 0.3% 5 91 57 74 1.0% 6 263 253 258 3.5% 7 677 614 646 8.7% 8 608 550 579 7.8% 9 445 465 455 6.2% 10 452 487 470 6.4% 11 507 519 513 6.9% 12 550 528 539 7.3% 13 460 460 6.2% 14 459 459 6.2% 15 466 466 6.3% 16 503 525 514 7.0% 17 556 590 573 7.8% 18 401 372 387 5.2% 19 274 290 282 3.8% 20 253 248 251 3.4% 21 168 163 166 2.2% 22 104 118 111 1.5% 23 59 98 79 1.1% 24 27 48 38 0.5% Total 2345 7504 3546 7390 100% 10.0°i° — — —— 9.0% ................. .. ... -- ...............:........................ ......... .............................. 6.0°r° .............. - - - ...............•-•--.....•-- ---..........----------------....................................... .. :;• 7.0°i° ..............••-- -.. .. .......... -' ---- / fF :. ,/ s.o°i° fF. ------------------------------- -- >::>:: / / •r," 01, i / . /' o :>: :• /1 ... :gS fr• j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Haggerty Lane -South of Main Street Northbound Hour June 30,2004 July 1,2004 July 2,2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Fri Weekday Weekday 1 1 6 4 0.2% 2 2 1 2 0.1% 3 0 1 1 0.0% 4 2 2 2 0.1% 5 16 7 12 0.7% 6 57 35 46 3.0% 7 88 83 86 5.5% 8 99 89 94 6.1% 9 93 65 79 5.1% 10 78 74 76 4.9% 11 89 119 104 6.7% 12 122 117 120 7.7% 13 98 55 77 4.9% 14 69 69 4.4% 15 87 87 5.6% 16 108 42 75 4.8% 17 121 71 96 6.2% 18 91 74 83 5.3% 19 116 105 111 7.1% 20 96 79 88 5.6% 21 55 80 68 4.3% 22 103 61 82 5.3% 23 82 99 91 5.8% 24 4 7 6 0.4% Total 776 1519 654 1553 100% 9.0% 8.0% _............................................................... -.... ...................... R; 5.0% .._..---- $E i .. . : -.. _ �- ._..... ice. ...-. •F l• -•---• ': - - ON o .... ...................... %:. �- ff� +i •t i f ;. %. j . 2 0% ......................_ ✓ .. -:; - f3 if .4; . •% %f 1. sm : f mi I/m i :! % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Haggerty Lane -South of Main Street Both Directions Hour June 30,2004 July 1,2004 July 2,2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Fri Weekday Weekday 1 10 10 10 0.3% 2 3 2 3 0.1% 3 2 2 2 0.1% 4 3 4 4 0.1% 5 21 9 15 0.4% 6 81 56 69 2.0% 7 204 162 183 5.3% 8 189 197 193 5.6% 9 176 140 158 4.5% 10 137 152 145 4.2% 11 191 233 212 6.1% 12 254 234 244 7.0% 13 227 152 190 5.5% 14 187 187 5.4% 15 194 194 5.6% 16 232 217 225 6.5% 17 312 334 323 9.3% 18 234 234 234 6.7% 19 268 246 257 7.4% 20 220 215 218 6.3% 21 145 163 154 4.4% 22 147 111 129 3.7% 23 103 119 111 3.2% 24 16 22 19 0.5% Total 1677 3540 1353 3476 100% 9.0%° ......... ......................................................................................... ........................•.. s.0°io ................................................................................................... .................................I.......... 7.0% .................................................................... .......................... ........ - „ 5.0% ............................... s, .. ,............ , . %/- f __::. .///• % •.................... 40% ................................. gz 3.0% ........................... .....,....`.ti i _ j! _ '! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ellis Street -West of Haggerty Lane Eastbound Hour June 30,2004 July 1,2004 July 2,2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Fri Weekday Weekday 1 0 0 0 0.0% 2 1 1 1 0.5% 3 1 2 2 0.8% 4 1 1 1 0.5% 5 2 2 2 1.1% 6 2 7 5 2.4% 7 4 7 6 2.9% 8 19 7 13 7.0% 9 8 9 9 4.5% 10 6 8 7 3.7% 11 8 13 11 5.6% 12 29 13 21 11.2% 13 4 9 7 3.5% 14 6 6 3.2% 15 11 11 5.9% 16 11 18 15 7.8% 17 27 21 24 12.8% 18 10 10 10 5.3% 19 8 14 11 5.9% 20 11 8 10 5.1% 21 8 15 12 6.1% 22 2 5 4 1.9% 23 6 2 4 2.1% 24 0 0 0 0.0% Total 83 195 79 187 100% 14.0% - is :A /f /f J 8.0% ......................... ...........................................yJ ......-.,., .-. .... J. ...... -...........-........._...._..... fx< PEI A f ��'C J �%T. '!:� !ii %fir '/i• !� fi �% �� S� 'i• �% •i% � � •% �;;: jI; i `�� '{/' fJ� .'I,.SS is�: " 0.0% —f_%J/• r,.'rJ f.:: { XI/.. /!.• { rI.•' J. F /J { '.'i...i- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ellis Street -West of Haggerty Lane Westbound Hour June 30, 2004 July 1,2004 July 2,2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Fri Weekday Weekday 1 0 1 1 0.2% 2 0 0 0 0.0% 3 1 1 1 0.5% 4 0 0 0 0.0% 5 2 1 2 0.7% 6 6 5 6 2.7% 7 11 13 12 5.9% 8 13 10 12 5.7% 9 7 14 11 5.2% 10 5 8 7 3.2% 11 18 11 15 7.1% 12 13 16 15 7.1% 13 12 18 15 7.4% 14 11 11 5.4% 15 15 15 7.4% 16 13 13 13 6.4% 17 18 13 16 7.6% 18 7 9 8 3.9% 19 12 17 15 7.1% 20 10 14 12 5.9% 21 9 9 9 4.4% 22 4 8 6 3.0% 23 4 5 5 2.2% 24 1 2 2 0.7% Total 78 204 98 203 100% 9.0% — -- 8.0% •.... •..........................................................................—......... —------—----•-------------.................... ....... FRX o ..... ..............................: .. ........, r _ ,ffl rx 6.0% ...................... +._..._..._............. i %'•-.. _...... .............. cf ;._ / /. %fffigi 5.0% ........... •------- f / f %?l ..: f' ��/7 'f i ME 2.0% ................................ f '•! :,l f<i. •`. j /fn n: l "': fir: •':�« ,%f �y .;yd ', i' •F/ %• ••••� %f •� ': � !f. f ;/j .. � �, f/ ;•,••: r ff ic/ � 1, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ellis Street -West of Haggerty Lane Both Directions Hour June 30, 2004 July 1,2004 July 2, 2004 Avg. %of Begin Wed Thurs Fri Weekday Weekday 1 0 1 1 0.1% 2 1 1 1 0.3% 3 2 3 3 0.6% 4 1 1 1 0.3% 5 4 3 4 0.9% 6 8 12 10 2.6% 7 15 20 18 4.5% 8 32 17 25 6.3% 9 15 23 19 4.9% 10 11 16 14 3.5% 11 26 24 25 6.4% 12 42 29 36 9.1% 13 16 27 22 5.5% 14 17 17 4.4% 15 26 26 6.7% 16 24 31 28 7.1% 17 45 34 40 10.1% 18 17 19 18 4.6% 19 20 31 26 6.5% 20 21 22 22 5.5% 21 17 24 21 5.3% 22 6 13 10 2.4% 23 10 7 9 2.2% 24 1 2 2 0.4% Total 161 399 177 390 100% 12.0% - -- - - 100%° -. ------- -- --------------- - ....... ............... ....... _. -.-- ------- :r. 4 0% r r _ rr . .$}r• r '. ...........'/ 6 �• �• ur :•'- 1. // rf � �•� ';i' ;/• .,J/ ':; •, . iY j ,,. ./, •,% •d ,.Gr` .tom :::2. , / f:. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPENDIX B - CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Highland Blvd./Ellis St. Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/5/2004 Analysis Year 2004 Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggerty Lane Condos TIS EastMest Street: Hi island Boulevard North/South Street: Ellis Street Intersection Orientation: North-South jStLjdy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 350 20 25 290 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.69 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 393 22 28 1 325 16 'Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 -- -- (Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Volume 35 5 40 70 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0,89 0.89 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 39 1 5 1 44 78 1 5 1 5 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 (Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized 0 0 (Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR L TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR v (vph) 5 28 88 78 10 13 (m) (vph) 1229 1155 403 264 428 ✓lc 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.30 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 0.82 1.20 0.07 Control Delay 7.9 8.2 16.4 24.3 13.6 LOS A A C C B Approach Delay - -- 16.4 23.0 Approach LOS - - C C Rights Reserved UCS2000TM Copyright m 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.11 Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k533.tmp 8/13/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Haggerty LmlMain St. Agency/Co. Malvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 112312004 Analysis Year 2004 Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggett Haggetty Lane Condos T/S East/West Street: Main Street North/South Street: Haggerty Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume (veh/h) 0 610 165 45 480 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 648 175 47 510 1 0 (Proportion of heavy 0 2 -- -- vehicles, PHv Median type Undivided IRT Channelized? 0 0 (Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T 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 (veh/h) 130 0 65 0 0 0 (Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 (Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 138 0 69 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach y N Storage 1 0 IRT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ,Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR Volume, v (vph) 47 207 Capacity, cm (vph) 803 273 v/c ratio 0.06 0.76 Queue length (95%) 0.19 5.60 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 50.2 LOS A F Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 50.2 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 d file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Bohm.BOB\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k24.tmp 8/12/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STORCONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Haggerty Ln./Ellis St. w Agency/Co. Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 81512004 Analysis Year 2004 Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggerty Lane Condos TIS East/West Street: Haggerty Lane North/South Street: Ellis Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 1 105 15 5 70 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 1 117 1 16 5 78 1 0 Proportion of heavy 0 -- -- 0 -- -- vehicles, PHv Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 15 0 10 0 0 0 (Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 (Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 16 0 11 0 0 1 0 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 5 27 Capacity, cr,(vph) 1464 833 /c ratio 0.00 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.01 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 9.5 LOS A A Approach delay (s/veh) -- — 9.5 pproach LOS — — A HCS200d'm Copyright©2003 University of Florid.,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1( file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k566.tmp 8/6/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection —Haggerty Ln. Main St. Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 112312004 Analysis Year 2004 (plus site) Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggerty Lane Condos TIS East/West Street: Main Street North/South Street: Haggerty Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 610 191 51 480 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 648 203 54 510 0 Proportion of heavy 0 -_ 2 -- vehicles, PHv (Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 144 0 68 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 153 0 72 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach Y N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Lane Configuration L LR Volume, v (vph) 54 225 Capacity, cm(vph) 783 252 ✓/c ratio 0.07 0.89 Queue length (95%) 0.22 7.65 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 74.7 LOS A F Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 74.7 Approach LOS — — F HCS2000T M Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.k file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k52B.tmp 8/13/2004 y ........ - ----- - - HCM Analysis Summary Main Street/Haggerty Lane Main Street/Haggerty Lane Area Type: Non CBD D.J. Clark 08/15/2004 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. 2004 pm design hour Case: MAIN-HAGGERTY 2004 SIGNAL Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 2 2 T 12.0 TR 12.0 WB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 NB 1 0 LR 12.0 SB 0 1 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume h 0 610 191 51 480 0 144 0 69 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 Lane Groups TR L T LR Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol( h) 60 0 15 0 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftlRight) I -- --- I --- --- I --- Signal Settings:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 50.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 6.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB TP WB LT NB L P SB Green 26.0 1 18.0 0 Yellowl All Red 3.01 0.01 3.0 0.0 Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Ca v/s g/C Lane V/c Delay Delay App Group Ratio Rntin Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS EB * TR 1792 0.229 0.520 TR 0.440 8.3 A 83 A WB L 293 0.096 0.520 L 0.184 7.8 A 7.2 A T 1840 0.144 0.520 T 0.278 7.1 A NB - * LR 636 0.119 0.360 LR 0.330 13.0 B 13.0 B Intersection:Delay= 8.5 sec/veh Int.LOS=A Xc 0.39 *Critical Lane Group Z(v/s)Crit= 0.35 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Main Street/Haggerty Lane Main Street/Haggerty Lane D.J. Clark 08/15/2004 2004 pm design hour Case: MAIN-HAGGERTY 2004 SIGNAL Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) Period) EB TR 3 / 5 19.4 0.0 480 r—All 19.4 0.0 --51 ------------------------------- __---............. ....... -.. WB L 0/ 2 12.9 0.0 ~•-----•--- ----- T 2/ 3 20.1 0.0 All 19.8 0.0 610 —► I�� 191 —i NB LR 2/ 3 17.2 0.0 144 69 All 17.2 0.0 1 2 26 + 3 0 18 3 0 Intersect. 19.2 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Haggerty Ln./South Acess Rd. Agency/Co. Marvin & Associates .Jurisdiction Date Performed 81512004 Analysis Year 2004 plus site) Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggerty Lane Condos T1S East/West Street: Haggerty Lane North/South Street: South Access Road Intersection Orientation: East-West IStUdy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 27 115 0 0 75 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 29 124 1 0 0 1 81 1 0 (Proportion of heavy ,vehicles, PHv 0 - -- 0 -- - Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 0 15 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 0 16 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I I I I LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 29 17 Capacity, cm(vph) 1529 964 v/c ratio 0,02 0.02 'Queue length (95%) 0.06 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 8.8 I'_OS A A Approach delay (s/veh) -- — 8.8 Approach LOS — — A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.R file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k53C.tmp 8/13/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Highland Blvd./Ellis St. Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 81512004 Analysis Year 2004 (plus site) Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggerty Lane Condos T1S East/West Street: Highland Boulevard North/South Street: Ellis Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (firs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound IVlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume 5 350 37 26 290 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 388 41 28 322 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 44 6 45 70 6 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 48 6 50 77 1 6 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized 0 0 (Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR L TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproacfi NB SB Westbound Eastbound IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR ✓ (vph) 5 28 104 77 11 C (m) (vph) 1232 1141 395 259 409 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.30 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.08 1.04 1.21 0.08 Control Delay 7.9 8.2 17.3 24.7 14.0 LOS A A C C B Approach Delay -- - 17.3 23.3 Approach LOS - -- C C Rights Reserved HCS2000T M Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1( Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k537.tmp 8/13/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection —Haggerty Ln./Ellis St. Agency/Co. Matvin & Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 81512004 Analysis Year 2004 (plus site) Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Project Description Haggerty Lane Condos TIS East/West Street: Haggerty Lane North/South Street: Ellis Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStUdy Period (hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume (veh/h) 14 123 15 10 80 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 15 133 16 10 86 0 Proportion of heavy 0 - 0 -- -- vehicles, PHv Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Volume (veh/h) 15 10 19 0 5 7 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 16 10 20 0 5 7 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 15 10 46 12 Capacity, cm(vph) 1523 1445 737 786 v/c ratio 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 T5 10.2 9.7 LOS A A 8 A Approach delay (s/veh) — 10.2 9.7 Approach LOS — — 8 A HCS2000TM Copyright 10 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1( file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2Tocal%20Settings\Temp\u2k4FB.tmp 8/13/2004 APPENDIX C -TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEETS Intersection: Main Street and Haggerty Lane Case: FiUllng PNI Peak Date: A tut 14.2004 ala-or Street: Slain tin et !,h,-,Street 1. Ha crtc lane Minor Street 2: Major Street Direction INS or E-\\1, F-\1 \liu,:r Street 1 Utrrctlou iN-S ur E-Rl. N-N Minor Street 2 Directs-IN-S ,r FAVI: IIItc Io'I(NII or SH) NB Approach DirectLm IEB nr WBt Major Sheer Speed Limit: 45 mph Mar Major Street 8Sf6%Speed: Nt.1 mph Tofu(Nanther oflnferreeaon Approaches: Ilour I)c•loolu•, t 2 J 4 S 6 7 8 9 lu 11 12 Alahl Streel Ell 24 7 J 3 146 1 122 441 M6 1 349 1 352 1 393 515 \Erin Street \\Ft IU J 10 13 JO 168 464 J2] J20 Jl3 - 514 568 Haggertv Lane NB ! 1 J 4 10 U 146 134 1 133 1 130� 162 179 Hn -t,,Lane SB Major Approach Totals J4 10 1 13 16 176 290 1 9115 989 769 765 '107 1083 \1u[Minor 1 ,roxh\"r.l. J 1 3 4 10 S3 146 134 1JJ J30 _ 162 179 Total Enlcrin•\"dome 37 Il 16 2u 186 343 I01 1121 902 895 1069 1 1262 Hour Be•hmin, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 plain Nlrcct FT y2 5U8 488 559 698 410 217 2S1 122 115 54 24 plain Street \1'B 484 450 1 406 467 tfld_ 443 252 I55_ 107 50 50 10 Has2ertc Lane NB Ill 142 128 147 186 14U 8U 49 )4 d6 16 3 Haggerty Lane NiJ \1a a A t roach IwA, 1UI6 9.58 894 1026 12d6 853 469 4U6 229 165 ITJ4 Max lYlinor A roach VoL 153 142 128 147 186 140 86 49 34 16 16 3 Total Enterin Volume 1 1169 1 1300 1022 1173 1 1472 993 549 455 2G3 181 120 1 37 lVarrant#/ -/sight-hwir!Vehicular I ahinte Warrant#2-Four-hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 1 Condition A Met YES 1 133.3% Warrant 2 Conditions Met YES 245.0% Warrant 1 Condition B Met I YES J 143.7% 11 elrrrrnt#3-Peak Hour Warrant#4-Pedestrian Volumes Warrant 3 Condtion A.1 Met NO 72.5% Warrant 4 Condtlon A Met N/A N/A Warrant 3 Conditon A.2 Met YES 186.0% Warrant 4 Condition B Met N/A N/A Warrant 3CondtionA.3Met YES 226.5% Warrant Condition B Met YES 248.0% Warrant#S-School Crossing Warrant#6-Coordinated Signal System \5'urronl5 Condlloru A1ct NO 0.0% \5'nrrunl6 Condilotu Met NO 50.U% Warrant#7-Crash F_iperience lVarrant#8-RoatbvgF NeAvork Warrant 7 Condtlon A Met NO 0.0% Warrant 8 Condtiow Met YES 147.2% Warrant 7 Condtlon B Met N/A N/A Warrant 7 Condden C Met YES 106.7% Warrant um 'i-aml Title Met Percent Met 1 Eight-hour Vehicular Volume YES 143.7% 2 Four-hour Vehicular Volume YES 245.0% 3 Peak Hour YES 248.0% 4 Pedestrian Volumes N/A N/A 5 School Crossing NO 0.0% 6 Coordinated Signal System Na 50.0% 7 Crash Experience N/A N/A 8 Roadway Network YES 147.2°/u Total Number of Warrants Met 4