The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06.0 Traffic Impact Analysis• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •I •I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SPRING VALLEY RANCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: Mr. Tom Gray Santa Lucia Preserve One Rancho San Carlos Road Carmel, CA 93923 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303/721-1440 Project Manager: David E. Hattan, PE Project Engineer: Tyler Stamey, El FHU Reference No. 06-072 March 2007 3(14(01 • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . S S . . S . • • • • • • • • • S • • • • Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Inpact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 A. Roadway Network 4 B. Existing Traffic Volumes 4 C. Traffic Operations 4 III. FUTURE CONDITIONS 9 A. Proposed Land Uses 9 B. Site Trip Generation 9 C. Trip Distribution 14 D. Traffic Assignment 14 E. Background Traffic 17 F. SH 82/CR114 Intersection — Short Range Future 17 G. SH 82/CR 114 Intersection — Long Range Future 22 H. Roadway Capacity Analysis for CR 114 27 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 29 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX C SHORT RANGE FUTURE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D LONG RANGE FUTURE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS C, IioLT I. 1.LE\t • . . . . . , s . s . . . S . . . • • • • • S • • • S S S • S • • • • • I • • • • • I Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2. Current Roadway Laneage 5 Figure 3. Existing Daily Volumes 6 Figure 4. Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements and LOS 7 Figure 5. Site Generated Traffic Volumes Second -Home Community 15 Figure 6. Site Generated Traffic Volumes Full -Time Resident Community 16 Figure 7. Short Range Future (2008) Background Traffic Volumes 18 Figure 8. Short Range Future (2008) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Second Home Community 19 Figure 9. Short Range Future (2008) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Full Time Resident Community 20 Figure 10. Short Range Recommended Laneage 21 Figure 11. 2026 Background Traffic Volurnes 23 Figure 12. Long Range Future (2026) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Second Home Community 24 Figure 13. Long Range Future (2026) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Full Time Resident Community 25 Figure 14. Long Term Recommended Laneage 26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Trip Generation Rates Second -Home Community Trip Generation Full -Time Community Trip Generation 10 11 13 . FE! SJURG CIN. LT ULLEVIG • . . . . . . . . . . s . . S . . . . . S • • S • • S • S S S • • • • • S • • • • • • Spring Valley Ranch T I. INTRODUCTION Spring Valley Ranch is a proposed development in Garfield County, Colorado. As shown in Figure 1, the development is located approxirnately 5 miles east of SH 82 near the intersection of County Road (CR) 114 and CR 115. Spring Valley Ranch is a proposed residential community which focuses on recreational activities. The development will include 558 new single family detached dwelling units, 192 of tiese units will be cabins. There will also be 19 apartment units associated with the development. The homes will range from cabins to residences on larger ranch lots varying in size. The development will include an 18 -hole golf course, a clubhouse, an equestrian center, a trailhead recreation center, and a village commercial district. The village commercial district would include several on-site amenities, such as: restaurants, athletic club, grocery and liquor stores, post office, gas station, church, and other amenities for exclusive use by resicents. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig has completed the following studies for this development: • Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Study, March 1999. A number of shorter letter reports were prepared in response to inquiries from Garfield County regarding specific elements of the transportation analysis. • A second report titled Spring Valley Ranch PUD (Chenoa) Traffic Impact Study was completed in Marcy 2000 incorporating all the previous material and updating the traffic forecasts. • A third report titled Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared in October 2003. • A full update to the 2003 report also titled Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis was completed in August 2005. This current report incorporates all the previous material, recent traffic volume counts, and updates the traffic forecasts to reflect the current development proposal. This report was prepared to assess the potential traffic impacts on adjacent roadways due to traffic generated by Spring Valley Ranch and to identify roadway improvements. Specifically, this study analyzes traffic volumes forecasted to use the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 as well as traffic operations on CR 114. For the purposes of this study, two future scenarios are considered: • Short Range Future — This scenario examines the traffic impacts at build -out of the development, assumed to be 2008. • Long Range Future — This scenario examines the traffic impacts associated with long range forecasted traffic volumes for 2027. IIFE LSBURG ell Ho ULLEVIC; Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • FELSBURG H (41 OLT C ULLEVIG 1-70 North GLENWOOD SPRINGS CA 115 SPRING VALLEY RANCH CR 113 CARBONDALE Figure 1 Vicinity Map Sprang Valley Ranch 06-072 08.:22/06 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch For each of these two future scenarios, two trip generation forecasts have been prepared: • Second Home Trip Generation — the developers of Spring Valley Ranch have planned a second home residential community. It is expected that many of the homes (50%) will be purchased and used as second homes by owners who have their primary residence elsewhere. Also, it is expected that 40% of the cabins will be used as a second home. This type of community would generate reduced traffic volumes because many of the homes would be unoccupied on a typical day. • Maximum Trip Generation - Garfield County in the past has requested that the development also be analyzed as if it \vas completely occupied by full-time residents. This would result in higher traffic generation to and from the community. _ 111111 FELSBURG Ci 1101 T ULLEVIG Page 3 • . . , . . . . . . . . . S S . S . . . S . . S S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • S • Spring Valley Ranch T II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Roadway Network Figure 2 displays the current roadway laneacie at the intersections of SH 82/CR 114 and CR 114/Frontage Road. CR 114 is a two-lane roadway which extends in a northeasterly direction from SH 82 to its intersection with CR 115 at the project site. There is a traffic signal at the SH 82/CR 114 intersection which is under the jur sdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). There is a frontage road on the east side of SH 82 which closely parallels it and also intersects with CR 114. CR 114 is paved between SH 82 and the Colorado Mountain College campus, a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. CR 114 has a steep uphill grade in the eastbound direction for about the first mile east of the frontage road. The roadway surface is approximately 22 feet wide but varies between 20 and 24 feet. Beyond the college, the roadway has a gravel surface and is approximately 22 feet wide. There are no major bridges or ditch crossings along this stretch of road. The posted speed limit on CR 114 is 35 mph and 25 mph on sections with sharp curves. B. Existing Traffic Volumes Daily traffic counts were obtained for a one-week period in April 2006 on CR 114. The average weekday traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. Existing peak hour turning movement traffic counts were also recorded at the intersections of SH 82/CR114 and CR 114/Frontage Road in April 2006 and are shown on Figure 4. Colorado Mountain College was in session when these counts were taken. The existing traffic count datasheets are located in Appendix A. C. Traffic Operations The primary focus of concerns about traffic operations is the intersection of SH 82/CR 114. This intersection is currently signalized, but traffic operations on the CR 114 approach to the intersection are complicated by the closely -spaced frontage road on the east side of SH 82. This second intersection has stop sign control on the frontage road approaches. The spacing between the edges of the pavement for the two roads is approximately 50 feet. Existing traffic operational conditions were aralyzed at the intersections of SH 82/CR 114 and CR 114/Frontage Road using techniques documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). The result of such an analysis is a level of service (LOS) rating. Level of service is a qualitative assessment of traffic flow based on the average stopped delay per vehicle at a controlled inte-section. Levels of service are described by a letter designation ranging from "A" to "F", with LOS A representing essentially uninterrupted flow, while LOS F represents a breakdown of traffic flow with excessive congestion and delay. Unsignalized intersection analyses report a LOS rating for each movement which must yield to conflicting traffic at the intersection, while a s gnalized intersection analysis results in a LOS rating for the entire intersection. 1111 EEL>hl.I.c, C11k)LT ULLE\'Ic., Page 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • q[> • f J • rT � • ILL •• Frontage Road i SH 82 -> S 17' 2 Figure 2 SH 82/CR 114 Existing Laneage GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION ONLY NOT TO SCALE Spring Valley Ranch 06.072 06122/06 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• tFELSBURG (41 HOLT & ULLEVIG To Glenwood ,,oprings North To Carbondale Spring Valley Ranch 4 Colorado Mountain College Figure 3 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Spring valley Ranch 06-072 08.22;06 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch T� As shown on Figure 4, the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 currently operates at LOS B during both peak hours. All non -free flow moiements at the unsignalized intersection of CR 114 and the frontage road operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The LOS analyses were conducted using the computer program SYNCHRO. Occasional backups have been noted for the northbound traffic on the frontage intersection. These are primarily caused by left turning traffic (to SH 82) on westbound CR 114 creating a continuous queue back from the signal at SH 82. This blocks the frontage road intersection and prevents frontage road traffic, desiring to turn northbound on SH 82, from making a right turn on red at the intersection. Much of this concern could be improved by placing signs reading "Do Not Block the Intersection" on the approaches to the frontage road intersection. If drivers heed these signs, it should keep most of the backups out of the intersection so it will be clear for vehicles turning right on red to go northbound on SH 82. Page 8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch T� III. FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Proposed Land Uses Spring Valley Ranch is proposed to have 366 single family homes, 192 cabins, 19 luxury style apartment homes, and on-site stores and services. The on-site services include restaurants, an athletic club, a general store, a golf course, and housekeeping services among other uses. B. Site Trip Generation For the majority of the proposed land uses, trip generation rates published in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Seventh Edition 2003 were applied. There are several unique situations that were taken into account for this analysis. The on-site services will be exclusively for member use, so all trips to and from these uses will be internal to the site. Exceptions to this are made for deliveries and employees. It is estimated that 10% of the normal daily trips from the on-site services will be comprised of deliveries, and a trip generation rate for employees not living on-site was estimated from a study completed by FHU for a similar development in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. A survey was conducted to determine how many rounds of golf were played by members of the community. The survey showed that two-thirds of the rounds cf golf were from members of the community. Thus the remaining one-third is comprised of people living outside of the community. The study Rancho San Carlos Traffic Impact Analysis, Dowling Associates 1993, was also used to estimate the trip generation for the housekeeping/gardening/maintenance component of the development. Table 1 summarizes the land uses and rates used for this study. The trip generation for the employees was further refined by current information from the developer. The developer will institute strict schedules and carpool incentives for employees. Approximately 60 percent of the employees will be on shifts that will not coincide with the peak hours of traffic demand. The developer will also provide pool vans at no cost to the employees to use to carpool to work. There will also be the provision to reimburse the employee for their mileage if they arrive with at least one other employee of Spring Valley Ranch in their vehicle. Oa_ ,(; ULLE v1c, Page 9 • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S I . . . . S S . S S I S S • • • S • S • • • • • • • Spring Valley Ranch 7 Table 1. Trip Generation Rates Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use ITE LUC Daily per In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached Housing 210 9.57 DU 25% 75% 0.75 63% 37% 1.01 Apartments 220 6.72 DU 20% 80% 0.51 65% 35% 0.62 Golf Course 430 35.74 Hole 79% 21% 2.22 44% 56% 2.74 Restaurant 931 89.89 KSF 50% 50% 0.81 67% 33% 7.49 Athletic Club 492 32.93 KSF 42% 58% 1.21 51% 49% 4.05 General Store 850 102.24 KSF 61% 39% 3.25 51% 49% 10.45 Office 710 3.32 KSF 88% 12% 0.48 17% 83% 0.46 Warehouse 150 4.96 KSF 82% 18% 0.45 25% 75% 0.47 Light Industrial 110 6.97 KSF 88% 12% 0.92 12% 88% 0.98 Stables NA 6 Stall 67% 33% 0.25 33% 67% 0.25 Housekeeping/gardening/ maintenance NA 1.7 Employee 50% 50% 0.43 50% 50% 0.43 Off -Site Employees NA 2.2 Employee 100% 0% 1 0% 100% 1 Table 2 shows the trips generated by each portion of the development, and the reductions applied to each for the second home community and Table 3 shows the trip generation associated with the full- time community. Since the second home community generates about 70 percent of the daily trips anticipated in the full time community, it is also anticipated that trips generated by the on-site services would also be lower than the full time community. This is accounted for in Table 2. C4FELSBURO It0I_-r a ULI_E\ IG Page 10 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Traffic Impact Analysis Spring Valley Ranch Second -Home Community Trip Generation Vehicle -Trip Generated 1.5 0 = Y c a. Total I LO LO 10 I CD CO O 1.0 O N OcoC) r- co O 10 Ln CO O .1- I 50 1 LO a) 140 1 In O l- In Ln 1 20 I 7 O O Lo to ON •- O O O r 0 O O 10 10 0 LO LC) Ln Ln 0 a C LO T O ti in O N O r U M NN N O N O M 0 o 10 0 0 0 T- AM Peak Hour Total 135 85 10 0 CO N 30 I O c- C) 'r 270 40 I Lf) N 15 10 30 LOL n CD Ln Ln 20 r O p Lf) �� CS) n- O O to e- Ln O Ln O O = to CO 0 CV O Ln Ln 010 N u7 CJ O CO O CO 0 N O O Ln I- 0 0 10 0 0 0 A 0 10 _O 0 `- 130 2,980 580 I 240 CJ 0 1.0 CIO 430 O N O Ln 0 LO ti 400 O O t-- N O in 10 CO O CO d N_ in 183 DU 115 DU D 0 0) 317 DU I_ 183 DU 77 DU _J 0 cD CD CJ 577 DU 18 Hole 6.40 KSF (I) Y O CO CV N 3.93 KSF 11.33 KSF 46 Stall 9.90 KSF L 4.70 KSF 35 Employees LIJ 0 — J 0 _ N O N 0 N N O CO N 0 (D N O CO V CO C)) N 0) d' O Ln 0) O N- Q Z-- O O O Q Z Description 1 Residential Trip Generation - Full Time 1 Single Family Detached Housing (50%) Cabins (60%) Staff Living Accommodations (Apartments, 100%) Full Time Subtotal Residential Trip Generation - Part Time Single Family Detached Housing (50%) Cabins (40%) Pari Time Subtotal Residential Subtotal Non Residential Trip Generation Golf Course Reduction for Member Trips Total External Golf Trips On -Site Services Restaurant 1 Athletic Club 1 General Store N U yw".. 5 N -0 fd Warehouse 1 Light Industrial Housekeeping/gardening/maintenance • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Traffic Impact Analysis Spring Valley Ranch N O 0 N a- 0 O O 0 O O LCD M N O O h N co co C) Ln ti O n CO h )A M LC) CO O O N. h r) U) O ti O (.0 h 03 O N O h Ln N O ti O In h O O CO O z a) v a) 0 c 0 O Lf) a) E F- 7 O LL (B a) a) Q ^E LL 1— O ti O N N Deliveries (For On -Site Services) O M h co Lu to CO e Total Vehicle -Trips Added to Road Network • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • . • • . • • . . • Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis Table 3. Full -Time Community Trip Generation Description ITE LUC Size Vehicle -Trip Generated Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Residential Trip Generation Single Family Detached Housing 210 558 DU 5,340 105 315 420 355 210 565 Apartments 220 19 DU 130 0 10 10 5 5 10 Residential Subtotal 5,470 105 325 430 360 215 575 Non Residential Trip Generation Golf Course 430 18 Hole 645 30 10 40 20 30 50 Reduction for Member Trips 430 20 5 25 15 20 35 Total External Golf Trips 215 10 5 15 5 10 15 On -Site Services Restaurant 931 13.40 KSF 575 5 5 10 35 15 50 Athletic Club 492 22.85 KSF 750 15 15 30 50 45 95 General Store 850 3.93 KSF 400 10 5 15 20 20 40 Office 710 11.33 KSF 40 5 0 5 0 5 5 Stables NA 46 Stall 275 5 5 10 5 5 10 Warehouse 150 9.90 KSF 50 5 0 5 0 5 5 Light Industrial 110 4.70 KSF 35 5 0 5 0 5 5 Housekeeping/gardening/maintenance NA 35 Employees 60 10 10 20 10 10 20 On Site Services Subtotal 2,185 60 40 100 120 110 230 Deliveries (For On -Site Services) 220 5 5 10 15 10 25 On Site Services Subtotal Less Delivery Trips = Internal Trips from Residential Uses 1,965 55 35 90 105 100 205 Residential Trips Less Internal Trips From On-site Services & Golf Course 3,075 30 285 315 240 95 335 Off -Site Employees Commuting to Development NA 185 Employees 405 40 0 40 0 40 40 Total Vehicle -Trips Added to Road Network 3,915 85 295 380 1260 155 415 As shown, it is anticipated that the site (as a second home community) would generate about 2,900 trips per day on the external roadway network and approximately 3,915 as a full time community. The second home trip scenario would generate approximately 250 trips during the AM peak hour and 290 trips during the PM peak hour. The full time scenario would generate approximately 380 trips during the AM peak hour and 415 during the PM peak hour. C!FELSBURG U LT ULLE1'IG Page 13 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• pmFELSBURG �i HOLT & ULLEVIG Q North 0)) U) N0)C-) 'I• CO CO et a7� l., 24 (65) 29(24) -- 111(52) LEGEND t__ 78(170) — 26(28) 45(50) J Frontage Road 'f) *—NO 1(11) 123(230) 2(2) CR 114 XXX(XXX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service 8(14)_2 57(132) _- 86(99) x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service - = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal 0'LLD .01 1,990 a/a a/a r• Figure 4 SH 82/CR 114 Existing Conditions Sprang Valley Ranch 06-072 08122/06 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis C. Trip Distribution The site trip distribution estimates for the second home community, shown in Figure 5, are based on the accessibility to major roadways, such as Interstate 70, and the developments location relative to existing developed areas in the Roaring Fork Valley, such as Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, and Aspen. It is expected that 67 percent of the site generated traffic would be oriented to and from the north on SH 82, and 33 percent would be oriented to and from the south on SH 82. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the full-time community, which is the same as the second home community trip distribution. D. Traffic Assignment The morning and evening peak hour site generated traffic volumes for both development scenarios were assigned to the roadway network as shown in Figures 5 and 6. These traffic volumes represent the increased demand on the local roadway network as a direct result of the proposed development. Although both CR 114 and CR 115 provide access from Spring Valley Ranch to SH 82, it was assumed that 100% of the site generated traffic would use CR 114. This assumption is conservative, as it adds a maximum number of vehicle -trips to CR 114. Spring Valley Ranch would add about 2,245 vehicles per day (vpd) to CR 114 with the second home community and approximately 3,915 vpd with the full time scenario. Daily volumes on SH 82 would increase from 1,500 to 2,625 north of CR 114 and from 745 to 1,290 south of CR 114. 1111,rE:i.rtr., r. II 0 1.1 I:LLEVR; Page 14 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •FELSBURG (d HOLT & ULLEVIG To Glenwood \prings 0 North r s �0 LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Average Daily Traffic Volumes XX% = Site Trip Distribution 5 4 Colorado Mountain College o r -- o \ _Greer‘ To Carbondale\ Spring Valley Ranch Figure 5 Site Generated Traffic Volumes Second -Home Community Spring Vailoy Ranch 06-072 02123/07 i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••�••••• FELSBURG �i HOLT & ULLEVIG To Glenwood �prings North N 0 0 To Carbondale\ ") carp/o LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Average Daily Traffic Volumes XX% = Site Trip Distribution Spring Valley Ranch GR 1 0) 1A 4 Colorado Mountain College Figure 6 Site Generated Traffic Volumes Full -Time Resident Community Spring Valley Ranch 06-072 02:09:07 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis E. Background Traffic Background traffic is the component of traffic volumes on the roadway network which are unrelated to the proposed development. Over the short range future (estimated to be 2008) background traffic on SH 82 is expected to grow at a rate of approximately 2% per year. This is consistent with the 20 year growth factor forecasted for SH 82 by CDOT, 1.4 which is approximately 2% per year. Background traffic was estimated on CR 114 based on traffic count data collected in previous iterations of this report, noted in the introduction. The calculated growth rate was less than 2% per year; therefore, CDOT's growth factor (2% per year) was used as a conservative estimate. Forecasts for the 2027 also utilized the aforementioned growth rates. Short range and long range forecasts of background traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown on Figures 7 and 11, respectively. F. SH 82/CR114 Intersection — Short Range Future The site generated traffic (Figures 5 and 6) was added to the short range future background traffic (Figure 7) to represent total traffic volurnes for the short range future. Figure 8 shows the volumes for the second home community and Figure 9 shows the volumes for the full time community. These estimated are very conservative in that they assume full buildout over a very short period of time. Several laneage improvements are necessary at the study intersections in order to accommodate the short range future traffic increases. These improvements would be constructed as an element of the cross section improvements to CR 114 (see later discussion) during the initial construction phase. These improvements would involve widening CR 114 on the approach to the intersection with SH 82. The first several hundred feet of CR 114 east of the frontage road should be widened to three lanes and striped to provide two westbound lanes so that right turns onto northbound SH 82 can be separated from through and left turning traffic. The separate right -turn lane allows traffic headed to Glenwood Springs (the predominate direction of travel) to turn right without waiting for westbound left and through traffic. An adequate acceleration lane on northbound SH 82 should be constructed for the right turning vehicles. This improvement will significantly improve intersection operations. Figure 10 shows the recommended laneage for the short range future. With the addition of the site generated traffic and the improvements recommended at these intersections, the signalized intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour with either development scenario. Figures 8 and 9 show the anticipated levels of service for the study intersections. Short range future operational analysis worksheets are located in Appendix C. FEI.SRI' RC; (41101 T ULLEVIG Page 17 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• FELSBURG (d HOLT & ULLEV1G Q North 25(70) 30(30) 115(55)—' LEGEND t— 100(255) -- 35(40) 60(75) XXX(XXX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal Frontage Road L) 10(15) 85(140)—.- 135(105)-1 5(140)—►135(105)-1 130(240) CR 114 3,400 Figure 7 SH 82/CR 114 Short Range Future (2008) Background Traffic Volumes & Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch 06-072 02.-09107 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• PFELSBURG (d HOLT C ULLEVIO .cZ. ?I> North N O CO N 1.0 0 00 O (0 N_ LN- �f-N V 0) M J IL 215(440) t-- 35(40) 115(170) in Tin in i— 5(15) I — 300(520) ..� 1 L,-47— 5(5) CR 114 25(70)x• 30(30) 115(55) j LEGEND ntr o10o .-M+- O O 1) 10(15)_i 310(295) 135(105)—q XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service a/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignaliz=_d Intersection Level of Service =Stop Sign = Traffic Signal .�. 7,100 lir 100)L Lot O -Lo -—' Figure 8 Short Range Future (2008) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Second Home Community Spring Valley Ranch 06-072 02/23/07 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •FELSBURG (i HOLT & ULLEV10 North 25(70)) 30(30)—> 115(55)1 t_ 295(455) -- 35(40) 160(175) 1r O10 L0 szr r p) r Ln �0 M 10 Frontage Road 10(15)__ 315(400)—i 135(105) 1 t— 5(15) 425(540) 5(5) CR 114 7,100 LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolJmes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service i = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal a/a —4. 17 Trr V Figure 9 Short Range Future (2008) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Full Time Resident Community Spring /alley Ranch 06072 02i09/07 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1- 0 0 0 0 0 J CO INTERSECTION Frontage Road 0 Oo O z O J cc 0 m W Z cc •I (> SH 82 ILL SH 82 Figure 10 SH 82 / CR 114 Recommended Laneage NOT TO SCALE: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION ONLY Spring valley Ranch 06.072 02/09/07 • • ••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis G. SH 82/CR 114 Intersection — Long Range Future • • Long range future (2027) total traffic volumes for both development scenarios are shown on Figures 12 and 13. These volumes are the sum of the site generated traffic volume (Figures 5 • and 6) and 2027 background traffic volumes (Figure 11). • • Additional improvements are necessary to accommodate the anticipated long range traffic at this intersection. Due to high left -turn volumes from southbound SH 82 to eastbound CR 114, a • second southbound left turn lane is recommended to shorten the length of the queue and improve overall intersection operations. Addirg a second southbound left turn lane will make it necessary to add a second eastbound receiving lane. This second eastbound lane will be • extended east of the frontage road. For a short distance east and west of the frontage road, CR • 114 will be a four -lane roadway. Figure 14 shows the recommended long range future laneage. Operations at this intersection should be monitored to determine when volumes/queues are of • sufficient magnitude to justify adding the second left turn lane. • With the above improvement, the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 is forecasted to operate at • LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour with the second home • community as shown on Figure 12. • With the full time community, the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114 is anticipated to operate at • the same levels of service as the second home community, LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Figure 13 shows the levels of service for this scenario. • • The above findings represent a worst case scenario which includes the following conditions: •• The traffic counts that the future background volumes are based on were collected when Colorado Mountain College (CMC) was in session. • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • FELSIil. R(. (9.11 I -I 0 11I -I0 T ULLEV IG •• • • All of the off-site employees will enter the site during the AM peak hour and leave during the PM peak hour. • All of the site traffic will be served by CR 114. Long range future operational analysis worksheets are located in Appendix D. Page 22 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .FELSBURG (11 HOLT ULLEVIG Q V North 140(360) 50(55) 1— 85(105) Frontage Road N trail) -JlL 35(100)) 40(40) 165(75)-1 LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes -� =Stop Sign El= Traffic Signal 115(200)—,- 195(145) 15(200)—>195(145) t— 5(5) 185(350) 5(5) IIT 01014) `n�ui o � n ,Q. f — CR 114 4,800 a/a a/a --.tom Figure 11 SH 82 / CR 114 Long Range Future (2027) Background Traffic Volumes & Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch 06-072 02/23/07 •••••••••••••••0•••••0.00•••••••••••••••••• pmFELSBURG r� HOLT & ULLEVIG Q North co = O CO O CO LO °oma �O O LO CO 0 1> i— 255(450) 50(55) — 140(150) Frontage Road N Lf) L() JV. t_ 5(5) -- 355(485) 5(5) CR 114 14) LEGEND 35(100). 40(40) 165(75) B/D XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X/X = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized 'ntersection Level of Service 15(20)___I 195(355)--,- 195(145)-1. 95(355)—>195(145); x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service -11/— = Stop Sign = Traffic Signal 8,900 a/a Figure 12 Second Home Community Long Range Future (2027) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch 06-072 03/06/07 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• pFELSBURG (d HOLT & ULLEVI0 North v) r- o ---,CO N o O C7) Lf) MO c0 35(100)_i 40(40)---- 165(75)—; LEGEND L 335(465) 50(55) 185(155) XXX(XXX) X/X = x/x = 0 Frontage Road 200(460)--,- 195(145)-1; 00(460)---,-195(145)-, AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Stop Sign Traffic Signal - 5(5) 480(505) 5(5) CR 114 8,900 (74. Figure 13 Full Time Resident Community Long Range Future (2027) Total Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Spring Valley Ranch 06.072 03/06/07 • • • • • • • • z- 0 •O Y U 0 • w O m w•z `\. • \•'\ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Frontage Road SH 82 • • • • • • 'J V • ,(] • U • • • • i 1 y I 1 4- 0 O U U Z O w O -) crcr m LLJ 1- O N o. - os? a SH 82 re - O 'O 0 C j c0 D 2 E O 9 ( O • C O — N Oo �c C • U C co • 1E i 0) - _ • O (n a) �• O N C• O O O • CI CI co 0 73 C p- O C N O O • �'L U 0) U - N r O - C as 05(n O) N O co - o v c rrDUOicE73 C —D (lic -O < ou. < Q .2U NG RANGE 0 z w w J = Recommended Additional Lanes Figure 14 SH 82/CR 114 C to.) O Rj a) O - LI -- U 4) C w O Recommended Laneage NOT TO SCALE: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION ONLY z Spring Valley Ranch 06-072 02/14/07 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis H. Roadway Capacity Analysis for CR 114 The Highway Capacity Manual separates two-lane highways into two categories, Class I and Class II highways, for determining the appropriate LOS. Class I highways are defined as highways with relatively high travel speeds and often serve long-distance trips. Class II highways are typically lower travel speeds and pass through rough terrain. For the purpose of this analysis, CR 114 was classified as a Class II two-lane highway. The two-lane highway capacity analysis for a Class II highway results in a flow rate (in vehicles per hour) relative to the level of service and the average speed. The level of service (LOS) ranges from "A" to "E" and is a qualitative assessment of the traffic flow based on the percent time delay. LOS A represents the highest quality of traffic service when motorists spend less than 40% of their time following another vehicle. LOS E represents traffic flow conditions for vehicles spending more than 85% of their time following another vehicle. Existing Roadway The existing capacity of CR 114 was determined based on information provided in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. The capacity of a two-lane road is based on several variables including the grade, the length of the grade, the percentage of heavy vehicles, the lane and shoulder widths, and the percentage of the roadway where passing is allowed. The Highwav Capacity Manual describes two methods for determining the capacity of a two- lane road. The first method is for general terrain and the second method is for sections of roadway where a specific grade is known. Separate analyses were performed for the rolling terrain segment of CR114 in the vicinity of the Colorado Mountain College and Spring Valley Ranch while the specific grade analysis was used for segment just east of SH 82 where the grade is steepest at a fairly consistent 7% grade. Based on the existing counts on CR 114, the peak hour occurs during the evening. Each lane is approximately 10 feet wide, with a two to four -foot shoulder on either side. Currently, CR 114 does not have any passing zones on this section. The existing peak hour volume on CR 114 is approximately 380 vehicles per hour (vph) during the evening peak hour. Traffic operates at LOS D on the steep segment of CR 114, and at LOS C higher up where the road is not as steep. Future Roadway Both the general terrain analysis and the specific grade analysis were used to determine the future capacity of CR 114. The general terrain analysis was used for the two-lane, rolling section of CR 114. The specific grade analysis was used for the improved two-lane section of CR 114, which has a grade of 7% over approximately 1.7 miles. Spring Valley Ranch is proposing to make improvements to CR 114 to accommodate forecasted increases in traffic. Travel lanes are proposed to be 12 feet wide with four -foot shoulders on each side. CR 115 between CR 114 and Landis Creek provides access to the western portion of Spring Valley Ranch. This section of road will also be improved to the paved, two-lane cross section similar to that on CR 114. C' !I )LT & ULLE\'I6 Page 27 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis • General Terrain Analysis - The general terrain analysis was performed assuming rolling terrain with approximately 50 percent of the roadway allowing passing. This section of CR 114 is proposed to have a two-lane paved cross section with 12 foot lanes, and four -foot shoulders on each side. The general analysis (rolling terrain) for long range (2026) traffic volumes results in a forecast of LOS C for the part time trip generation scenario, and LOS D for the full time trip generation scenario. The maximurn hourly capacity under these conditions is approximately 3,200 vph. Thus, the volume -to -capacity (vlc) ratio is 0.37 with the full time resident scenario and 0.33 with the part time scenario. This shows that the future traffic is less than one-half of the maximum capacity. • Specific Grade Analysis - The capacity of the steep segment of CR 114 where the grade is 7% is approximately 1,700 vph, which is less than that of the rolling terrain above, as would be expected. The boundary between LOS D and LOS E boundary is a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio of approximately 26% of capacity. The specific grade analysis determined that in the long range future (2026) traffic volumes operate at LOS E for both trip generation scenarios. Tie v/c ratios on CR 114 range from 0.38 for the part time scenario, and 0.48 for the full time scenario. Thus, the future volume represents less than one-half of the capacity of the roadway for either scenario. In order to obtain better operating characteristics, such as LOS D, very significant improvements would be required, such as widening CR 114 to provide an uphill climbing lane. With the addition of the uphill climb lane, it is anticipated CR 114 would operate at LOS D (either trip generation scenario). 11 I' El:AM.:RC; (1HOLT 1.) I. 1. EVIG Page 28 • . . . . ` . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . S . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Spring Valley Ranch is a proposed residential development located in Garfield County, Colorado approximately 5 miles east of SH 82, near the intersection of CR 114 and CR 115. Spring Valley Ranch will include 558 new single family detached dwelling units, of which 192 are cabins. The development also includes 19 apartments. The development will also include an 18 -hole golf course, a clubhouse, an equestrian center, a trailhead recreation center, and a village commercial district. The village commercial district would include several on-site amenities, such as: restaurants, athletic club, grocery and liquor stores, post office, gas station, church, and other amenities for exclusive use by residents. The analysis of the proposed development site resulted in the following findings and recommendations: • The primary access to the development will be CR 114. Several improvements are recommended to this road east of its intersection with SH 82. The two travel lanes will be widened to 12 feet each with four -foot shoulders on each side. The unpaved portion of CR 114 approaching Spring Valley Ranch as well as CR 115 within the development will be paved with improved shoulders. Analysis of the long range future peak hour volumes results in a volume/capacity of 0.48 for CR 114 indicative of LOS E. • In the short range future the following improvements are needed at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114: o Add a westbound to northbound right acceleration lane to separate right turning vehicles from the other movements at this intersection. With this improvement the intersection is projected to operate at level of service B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the evening peak hour. • The following improvements should be made near the intersection of CR 114 and the frontage road in the short range future: o Add a second westbound lane approaching the frontage road and SH 82. o Add a second lane for northbound traffic on the frontage road approaching CR 114. o Signs requiring motorists to not block the frontage road intersection should be added to the north, east, and south legs. With these improvements, all turning movements at this intersection will operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. . FELSGCRO (41101.T [ uI.LEvR; Page 29 • • • Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis • • • In the long range future, the following improvements are needed at the intersection of • SH 82 and CR 114: • • o Add a second left turn lane on SH 82 to the southbound approach to CR 114. This will require adding a second receiving lane on CR 114 to the west of the • frontage road. • With this improvement, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS B during the AM • peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, given the long range traffic forecasts for • both second home community and full time community. • • The following improvement should be made to the intersection of CR 114 and the • frontage road in the long range future: • 0 Add a second lane in the eastbound direction, east of the intersection to • accommodate the additional receiving lane required to accommodate the dual • southbound left turns at the intersection of SH 82 and CR 114. • With this improvement, unsignalized movements at this intersection will operate at LOS • E or better during the peak hours. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PI FEISSURG ( IIOL ULT LEVIG Page 30 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS C P. !TISK:RO P. HOLT L1LEV10 Appendix A ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CR 114 / E Frontage Road (4/12/2006) AM Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Time EBLT I EBT I EBRT WBLT I W8T 1 WBRT NBLT I NBT 1 NBRT SBLT I SBT 1 SBRT Int Total j 7:00-7:15 2 11 23 0 20 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 68 7:15-7:30 1 14 19 1 32 0 9 0 2 0 0 3 81 7:30-7:45 1 11 23 0 40 0 15 0 0 0 0 2 92 7:45-8:00 4 17 21 0 21 1 10 1 2 0 1 2 80 Total 8 53 86 1 113 1 46 1 4 0 1 7 321 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-9:00 Total Peak Hour 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:45-8:00 8:00-8:15 Total 2 1 0 0 3 15 15 14 22 66 23 24 27 23 97 1 14 19 1 11 23 4 17 21 2 15 23 8 57 86 0 2 0 3 30 16 15 19 80 0 0 0 2 2 1 32 0 O 40 0 O 21 1 1 30 0 2 123 1 12 10 16 19 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 2 15 0 0 10 1 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 3 8 O 0 3 O 0 2 O 1 2 O 1 4 46 1 4 O 2 11 88 68 76 88 320 81 92 80 88 341 PM Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Stan Time EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBFT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT Int Total 4:00-4:15 2 18 19 0 0 2 18 0 0 1 10 15 85 4:15-4:30 2 21 15 2 43 1 13 0 1 2 0 1 101 4:30-4:45 0 23 18 1 24 1 27 0 2 0 0 1 97 4:45-5:00 2 30 24 2 23 1 15 0 1 1 1 2 102 Total 6 92 76 5 90 5 73 0 4 4 11 19 385 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 Total Peak Hour 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 Total 6 31 29 2 31 26 3 43 22 3 27 22 14 132 99 6 31 29 2 31 26 3 43 22 3 27 22 14 132 99 0 0 1 2 39 59 78 54 230 4 0 4 3 11 O 39 4 O 59 0 1 78 4 1 54 3 2 230 11 39 32 23 16 110 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 5 39 1 2 32 0 1 23 0 1 16 0 1 110 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 4 4 3 15 1 0 4 O 2 4 O 0 4 0 0 3 1 2 15 156 157 179 130 622 156 157 179 130 622 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CR 114 / SH 82 (4/26/2006) AM Eastbound Westbound Northbound Northbound Southbound Southbound Start Time EBLT 1 EBT ) EBRT WBLT 1 WBT 1 WBRT NBLT 1 NBT J NBRT SBLT J SBT 1 SBRT Int Total 7:00.7:15 7 6 33 15 5 12 11 75 3 35 244 9 455 7:15-7:30 6 5 23 12 7 19 14 92 5 30 187 11 411 7:30-7:45 9 3 22 18 5 11 10 114 9 13 237 3 454 7:45-8:00 4 7 35 9 6 21 11 122 6 35 258 11 525 Total 26 21 113 54 23 63 46 403 23 113 926 34 1845 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-9:00 Total Peak Hour 7:45-8:00 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 Total 7 4 9 2 22 7 10 5 9 31 30 20 26 25 101 4 7 35 7 7 30 4 10 20 9 5 26 24 29 111 13 14 9 12 46 5 10 5 8 28 26 10 21 13 70 9 6 21 13 5 26 14 10 10 9 5 21 45 26 78 12 12 10 13 47 124 132 131 138 525 6 7 8 10 31 11 122 6 12 124 6 12 132 7 10 131 8 45 509 27 33 227 10 55 264 15 40 190 8 32 192 9 160 873 42 35 258 11 33 227 10 55 264 15 40 190 8 163 939 44 500 553 462 463 1978 525 500 553 462 2040 PM Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Time EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBF:T NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SST SBRT Int Total 4:00-4:15 16 5 12 5 2 36 14 236 10 21 155 2 514 4:15-4:30 8 7 4 36 6 8 31 293 13 17 103 3 529 4:30-4:45 7 8 11 18 9 30 18 297 11 49 181 9 648 4:45-5:00 8 6 7 11 8 48 13 345 11 13 88 3 561 Total 39 26 34 70 25 122 76 1171 45 100 527 17 2252 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 Total Peak Hour 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 Total 20 12 15 18 65 14 4 1 5 24 18 10 12 12 52 20 14 18 12 4 10 15 1 12 18 5 12 65 24 52 18 11 11 10 50 11 7 7 3 28 47 57 33 33 170 18 11 47 11 7 57 11 7 33 10 3 33 50 28 170 23 310 6 20 373 13 27 301 16 24 319 12 94 1303 47 23 310 6 20 373 13 27 301 16 24 319 12 94 1303 47 27 142 32 136 44 147 38 167 141 592 3 15 6 5 29 27 142 3 32 136 15 44 147 6 38 167 5 141 592 29 639 690 620 646 2595 639 690 620 646 2595 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Date Day SH 82 NMCR 114 CR 114 E/O SH 82 NB SB Total EB WB Total 4/11/2006 Tuesday 11,762 11,733 23,495 938 899 1,837 4/12/2006 Wednesday 12,175 12,161 24.336 1,092 1,062 2,154 4/13/2006 Thursday 12,217 12,298 24 515 1,000 981 1,981 4/14/2006 Friday 12,479 12,621 25.100 959 971 1,930 4/15/2006 Saturday 9,577 9,478 19 055 787 781 1,568 4/16/2006 Sunday 7,889 7,382 15.271 1,141 1,056 2,197 4/17/2006 Monday 12,137 11,979 24,116 1,125 1,062 2,187 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS rEa.sru itc.; (4 IIOLT ULLEVIG Appendix B ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: CR 114 & SH 82 8/28/2006 f Moyement.R IMIFBIfinEBT~: Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 1 L_..3W,67 , BR;,;NBL NBTF ., NBR> _SBLyx ;SBT" _SBR r +i r 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1822 0.85 1574 29 0.92 32 0 58 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 4 r ft 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1805 1583 1770 0.77 1.00 0.95 1443 1583 1770 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1583 1.00. 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1583 509 27 44 0.92 0.92 0.92 553 29 48 0 15 12 553 14 36 Perm 24 111 45 26 78 45 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 26 121 49 28 85 49 0 104 0 0 73 0 0 17 0 77 12 49 Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot 4 8 5 2 4 4 8 8 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 221 223 203 223 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1770 3539 0.95 1.00 1770 3539 163 939 0.92 0.92 177 1021 0 0 177 1021 Prot 1 6 2 6 31.4 31.4 11.6 39.4 39.4 31.4 31.4 11.6 39.4 39.4 0.49 0.49 0.18 0.62 0.62 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0. 3.0 3.0 1736 777 321 2179 975 0.16 c0.10 c0.29 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.02 0.55 0.47 0.04 9.8 8.4 23.8 6.6 4.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 9.9 8.4 25.-9-- 6.8 4.9 A A C A A 11.7 9.4 B A 0.04 ....._.. 0.26 24.5 1.00 0.6 25.2 C 24.4 C 0.01 0.68- 23.9 1.00 0.1 24.0 C c0.05 0.01 0.38 0.05 0.49 25.0 23.8 29.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.2 0.1 3.7 26.2 23.9 33.1 C C C 25.0 C 3.6 3.6 0.06 4.0 3A 100 0.03 Perm lnte"rsee.gin. Summary � = "'�."� HCM Average Control Delay 12.4 HCM Volume to Capacity. ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of •Serviice 8.0 A Spring Valley Ranch Existing AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Report Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 8/28/2006 k- 4\ t \*. d P.M.F.:6WW.K4c.-da-W-1 _ I.M.F5Mfg5RAWL8116MATMAVBRMN.13.1SUM.;019..aglWaR&S.U'i7M.i Lane Configurations .. . . 4+ 4, 4� 4) Sign Control = Free . • ' . ' Free Stop Stop. : ' • ! Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 8 57 86 2 123 1 46 1 4 0 2 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 62 93 . .2 134 1 50 1 4 0 2 12 ._ . Pedestrians LaneWidth (ft) Waiking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Mediantype Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 135 155 278 265 109 270 311 134 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 135 155 278 265 109 270 311 134 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 None None tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 1450 _ Piri6gtna 14PRIAMERNE RitaiN 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 92 100 100 100 100 99 660 635 945 675 599 915 1425 Vai3ii--1-61-01-61 137 55' . _ Volume Left yoiumeRight cSH • .._...... 9 2 50 0 93 1 4 12. 1450 1425 676 846 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 7 1 (s) 0.4 0.1 10.8. 9.3 LaneLOS A A B A Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 16.8 6.3 Approach LOS B A itiliWO.Laidiksa.off.mAr,-)St> 4c,r1 Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.2 29.3% ICU Level of Service 15 Spring Valley Ranch Existing AM Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Report Page 2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: CR 114 & SH 82 8/28/2006 -a* 4- 4-- A\ t \•- 1, 4/ KiiiiTaff).-preff-44:y4,-_.-Tr:EB1.:f:q:EB..174-Xf3Rrfi'.}:?.. L ,W,IBTON.P.131:gaNaVANI5TaiNBRMSB,L.SB.T.44BR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 i'l ) +4' r ) ++ r Ideal Flo)/x (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1583 1805 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1361 1583 1393 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 65 24 52 50 28 170 . 94 1303 47 141 592 29 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. How(vph) 71 26 57 54 30 185 102 1416 51 153 643 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 50 0 0 162 0 0 12 0 0 13 LaneGroupFlow (vph) 0 97 7 0 84 23 102 1416 39 153 643 19 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 7.5 41.0 41.0 8.4 41.9 41.9 Effective Green, g (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 7.5 41.0 41.0 8.4 41.9 41.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.59 0.59 0.12 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3:0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 194 171 194 190 2073 927 212 2118 948 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 0.1 Delay (s) 34.1 27.1 Level ofService C C Approach Delay 31.5 Approach LOS 0.06 c0.40 c0.09 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.12 0.54 0.68 0.04 0.72 0.30 0.02 28.7 27.3 29.6 10.0 6.2 29.7 6.9 5.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.2 0.3 2.9 0.9 0.0 11.5 0.1 0.0 30.9 27.6 32.5 11.0 6.2 41.1 7.0 5.7 CCC B A D A A 28.6 12.2 13.2 C Thtets_e7ction_surnrriali7P-4,--WASTW4,&-;,a,Mrig &z. HCM Average Control Delay HCM VOlume to Capacity ratio 0 67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65146i. 1 U Level of -Service 15.1 HCM Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Spring Valley Ranch Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 8/28/2006 Movement � _•EBL';,,IFBT ' EBR UIYBLMW faiwt3 N, BL _ NTs BNBR�SBL Stop 0% 1 5 1 0.92 0.92 0.92 1 5 1 Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (vehlh) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) 14 0.92 15 4 Free 0% 132 0.92 143 93 99 2 0.92 0.92 108 2 4 Free 0% 230 11 110 0.92 0.92 0.92 250 12 120 None �`$BT ;SBR Stop 0% 2 15 0.92 0.92 2 16 None 262 251 505 494 197 494 542 256 262 251 505 494 197 494 542 256 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 100 74 100 99 100 100 98 1302 1314 461 470 844 477 442 783 pirection Lane # - ;EB Volume Total Volume Left Volume -Right cSH Volume to Capacity 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 Control Delay (s) 0.5 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.5 Approach LOS 11 ```NB11 , SB 1 266 264 - 126 20 15 2 120 1 108 12 5 16 1302 1314 470 698 0.00 0.27 0.03 0... 27 2 0.1 15.4 10.3 A C B _ 0.1 15.4 10.3 - C B intersection: Summary kag Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.4 42:6%:• 15 'ICU Level of Service A Spring Valley Ranch Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 8/24/2006 Analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Highway / Direction of Travel CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2006 input Data Analysis Opposing Y Shoulder width It �` r Class I highway Terrain 17 Grade Length F Class II highway Level 17 Rolling 1.70 mi Up/down 7.0 PHF 0.88% 100 ,PT 4 PR 1 % 0 1Lane width It -4-- I Lane width ft -> _ Y Shoulder width Il Show north Peak -hour factor, No -passing zone furorr % Trucks and Buses % Recreational vehicles, Access points/ mi +r Segment length, direction vol., V 138veh/h d direction vol., Vo 243veh/h r Lt mi Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 12.3 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV IHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(E 1)) 0.689 0.972 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 0.67 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) v V /(PHF'fHV fG) 340 284 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, V1 veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vi/ fHv) 41.3 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones. fop (Exhibit 20-19) 3.5 milk Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLs(Exh 20-5) 3.7 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fis fA) 41.3 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776vp foo 33.0 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following , Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (0) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 2.4 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fyv fHV 11(1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.947 0.995 Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi= V/(PHF'fHv fG) 166 277 Base percent time-spent-following`t, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 46.6 Adj. for no -passing zone, fop(%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 38.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 84.6 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4) O Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=Vp/ 1.700 0.20 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT10 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 67 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V'Lt 235 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 2.0 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain. fG= 1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h. terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a spe:ific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Tyler\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k5A.tmp Version 4.1d 8/28/2006 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Two -Way Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 8/24/2006 Analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Highway CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2006 Input Data _ Shoulder width It r Class I highway E Class II highway Terrain 1- Level 1✓ Rolling Two-way hourly volume 381 veh/h Directional split 63/37 �---- Lane v.idth It Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 1111, No -passing lone 50 y c..v lterth Arrow % Trucks and Buses , PT 4 % /o Recreational vehicles, PR 1% Access points/ mi 0 Lane width It _ — Shoulder width _ _ It Segment length, L, mi Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-7) 0.93 Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9) 1.9 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9) 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv ft1v=1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.964 Two-way flow rate, vp (pc/h) vP V/ (PHF' fG 'fHv) 483 vp ' highest directional split proportion2 (pc/h) 304 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed, SFM mi/h Observed volume, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFS FFS=SFM+0.00776(V/ fHv ) 42.6 mi/h 45.0 Base free-flow speed, BFFSFM milh Adj. for lane width and shoulder width3, fls (Exhibit 20-5) 2'4 mi/h Adj. for access points, f (Exhibit 20-6) 0.0 A mi/h 42.6 Free-flow speed, FFS (FSS=BFFS-fLs-fA) mi/h Adj. for no -passing zones, ftp (milh) (Exhibit 20-11) 2.9 Average travel speed, ATS (mi/h) ATS=FFS-0.00776vp fnp 35.9 Percent Time -Spent -Following Grade Adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8) 0.77 Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-10) 1.8 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10) 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fl -Iv 1/ (1+ PT(E-r1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.969 Two-way flow rate, vp (pc/h) vP V/ (PHF' fG' fHv) 580 vp * highest directional split proportion2 (pc/h) 365 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-e 0.000879vp) 39.9 Adj. for directional distribution and no -passing zone, fd,hp(%)(Exh. 20-12) 17.3 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f drip 57.2 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 for Class I or 20-4 for Class II) C Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=Vol 3,200 0.15 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi) VMTis 0.25Li(V/PHF) 0 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60 (veh- mi) VMT60=V'L, 0 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TTS5(veh-h). TT15= VMT15/ATS 0.0 Notes 1. If vp >= 3,200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directicnai split vp >= 1,700 pc/h, terminated anlysis-the LOS is F. HCS2000TM Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Tyler\Local%2CSettings\Temp\s2k6A.tmp Version 4.1d 8/28/2006 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX C SHORT RANGE FUTURE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS �JIULT ULLEV1G Appendix C ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Background AM 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary EBL 1900 EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 4\ t i r NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 25 0.92 27 0 0 Perm 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1822 0.84 1564 30 0.92 33 0 60 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 115 0.92 125 106 19 Perm l 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1806 1583 0.77 1.00 1439 1583 60 35 100 0.92 0.92 0.92 65 38 109 0 0 93 0 103 16 Perm Perm 4 8 4 4 8 8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 234 237 215 237 0.04 0.01 c0.07 0.01 0.26 0.08 0.48 0.07 25.1 24.4 26.0 24.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.1 25.7 24.6 27.7 24.5 C C C C 24.9 26.1 C C 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 45 0.92 49 0 49 Prot 5 3.6 3.6 0.05 4.0 3.0 95 0.03 0.52 30.8 1.00 4.7 35.4 D ++ rf 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 530 30 0.92 0.92 576 33 0 17 576 16 Perm 2 32.9 32.9 0.49 4.0 3.0 1743 0.16 0.33 10.3 1.00 0.1 10.4 B 12.2 B 2 32.9 32.9 0.49 4.0 3.0 780 0.01 0.02 8.7 1.00 0.0 8.7 A vi 44+ r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 170 975 45 0.92 0.92 0.92 185 1060 49 0 0 12 185 1060 37 Prot Perm 1 6 11.9 11.9 0.18 4.0 3.0 315 c0.10 0.59 25.2 1.00 2.8 28.0 C 41.2 41.2 0.62 4.0 3.0 2183 c0.30 0.49 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A 10.1 B 6 41.2 41.2 0.62 4.0 3.0 976 0.02 0.04 5.0 1.00 0.0 5.0 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 13.3 0.49 66.8 52.1% 15 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 ICU Level of Service A Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Report Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Background AM 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 85 135 5 130 5 50 5 5 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 92 147 5 141 5 54 5 5 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 147 239 361 345 166 351 416 144 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 147 239 361 345 166 351 416 144 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 91 99 99 99 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1435 1328 574 571 879 591 521 903 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 250 152 65 27 Volume Left 11 5 54 5 Volume Right 147 5 5 16 cSH 1435 1328 591 721 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 9 3 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.3 11.9 10.2 Lane LOS A A BB Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.3 11.9 10.2 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% IOU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Background PM 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 c 4- 4-- 4\ t 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r '1 +T ? 1i ++ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1800 1583 1804 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Pemiitted 0.70 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1307 1583 1373 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 70 30 55 75 40 255 100 1355 55 175 615 30 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 33 60 82 43 277 109 1473 60 190 668 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 50 0 0 231 0 0 12 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 109 10 0 125 46 109 1473 48 190 668 18 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 8.0 33.9 33.9 10.5 36.4 36.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 8.0 33.9 33.9 10.5 36.4 36.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 260 226 260 210 1777 795 275 1908 854 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.42 c0.11 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 c0.09 0.03 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.04 0.55 0.18 0.52 0.83 0.06 0.69 0.35 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 23.7 25.9 24.3 27.9 14.3 8.6 27.0 8.8 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 2.9 0.3 2.2 3.3 0.0 7.3 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 27.6 23.8 28.8 24.6 30.1 17.7 8.7 34.2 8.9 7.3 Level of Service C C C C C B AC A A Approach Delay (s) 26.2 25.9 18.2 14.3 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..••••••••.••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Background PM 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 4\ t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4, 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 140 105 5 240 15 115 5 5 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 152 114 5 261 16 125 5 5 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 277 266 541 530 209 530 579 269 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 277 266 541 530 209 530 579 269 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 71 99 99 99 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1286 1298 433 447 831 447 419 770 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 283 283 136 27 Volume Left 16 5 125 5 Volume Right 114 16 5 16 cSH 1286 1298 442 587 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 32 4 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.2 16.7 11.4 Lane LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.2 16.7 11.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total AM Second Home 1: CR 114& SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) EBL. EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1900 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 25 0.92 27 0 0 Perm 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1822 0.82 1531 30 0.92 33 0 60 r 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 4 115 115 0.92 0.92 125 125 103 0 22 0 Perm Perm 4. 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1794 0.74 1372 35 0.92 38 0 163 8 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 215 0.92 234 193 41 Perm 4 4 8 8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 267 277 240 277 0.04 0.01 c0.12 0.03 0.22 0.08 0.68 0.15 19.9 19.4 21.7 19.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.4 0.1 7.4 0.2 20.3 19.5 29.1 19.9 C B C B 19.8 23.7 B C 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 45 0.92 49 0 49 Prot 5 2.6 2.6 0.05 4.0 3.0 82 0.03 0.60 26.2 1.00 11.2 37.4 D tt r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 530 55 0.92 0.92 576 60 0 31 576 29 Perm 2 23.8 23.8 0.42 4.0 3.0 1501 0.16 0.38 11.1 1.00 0.2 11.3 B 13.0 B 2 23.8 23.8 0.42 4.0 3.0 672 0.02 0.04 9.5 1.00 0.0 9.5 A '11 tt r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 225 975 45 0.92 0.92 0.92 245 1060 49 0 0 15 245 1060 34 Prot Perm 1 6 10.5 10.5 0.19 4.0 3.0 331 c0.14 0.74 21.5 1.00 8.6 30.1 C 31.7 31.7 0.57 4.0 3.0 2000 c0.30 0.53 7.6 1.00 0.3 7.8 A 11.8 B 6 31.7 31.7 0.57 4.0 3.0 894 0.02 0.04 5.4 1.00 0.0 5.4 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 14.5 0.59 56.1 55.2% 15 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 ICU Level of Service B Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 •••••.•••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total AM Second Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4T+ 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 165 135 5 300 5 50 5 5 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 179 147 5 326 5 54 5 5 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 332 326 467 617 253 622 688 166 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 332 326 467 617 253 622 688 166 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 88 99 99 98 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1225 1230 459 399 747 361 363 849 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 337 168 168 36 29 27 Volume Left 11 5 0 36 18 5 Volume Right 147 0 5 0 5 16 cSH 1225 1230 1700 459 480 552 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 6 5 4 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.3 0.0 13.5 13.0 11.9 Lane LOS A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 13.3 11.9 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 • • • 1:CR114&SH82 • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •• • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total PM Second Home 3/7/2007 • • • • • Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 1- k 4\ T\* 1 4/ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1900 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 70 0.92 76 0 0 Perm 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1800 0.57 1060 30 0.92 33 0 109 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 4 r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1795 1583 0.69 1.00 1293 1583 55 0.92 60 49 11 Perm 120 40 345 0.92 0.92 0.92 130 43 375 0 0 220 0 173 155 Perm Perm 4 8 4 4 8 8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 192 286 234 286 0.10 0.01 c0.13 0.10 0.57 0.04 0.74 0.54 30.6 27.7 31.7 30.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.8 0.1 11.6 2.1 34.4 27.7 43.3 32.5 C C D C 32.1 35.9 C D 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 100 0.92 109 0 109 Prot 5 8.0 8.0 0.10 4.0 3.0 173 0.06 0.63 35.5 1.00 7.3 42.8 D ++ r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1355 105 0.92 0.92 1473 114 0 29 1473 85 Perm 2 39.0 39.0 0.48 4.0 3.0 1685 c0.42 0.87 19.2 1.00 5.4 24.6 C 24.9 C 2 39.0 39.0 0.48 4.0 3.0 754 0.05 0.11 11.9 1.00 0.1 11.9 B ++ r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 280 615 30 0.92 0.92 0.92 304 668 33 0 0 14 304 668 19 Prot Perm 1 6 16.1 16.1 0.20 4.0 3.0 348 c0.17 0.87 31.9 1.00 20.7 52.7 D 47.1 47.1 0.58 4.0 3.0 2035 0.19 0.33 9.1 1.00 0.1 9.2 A 22.3 C 6 47.1 47.1 0.58 4.0 3.0 910 0.01 0.02 7.5 1.00 0.0 7.5 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 26.3 0.85 81.9 78.4% 15 HCM Level of Service C Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 ICU Level of Service D Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••r•••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total PM Second Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 --� ♦- k t t \. 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL "SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 41:, 4 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 295 105 5 375 15 115 5 5 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 321 114 5 408 16 125 5 5 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 424 435 644 845 378 845 894 212 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 424 435 644 845 378 845 894 212 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 63 98 99 98 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1132 1121 340 292 620 246 274 793 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 451 209 220 83 53 27 Volume Left 16 5 0 83 42 5 Volume Right 114 0 16 0 5 16 cSH 1132 1121 1700 340 350 435 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.15 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 24 13 5 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.3 0.0 19.0 17.1 13.8 Lane LOS A A C C B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.1 18.2 13.8 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary'- '' Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total AM Primary Home 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary t EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 4 r 4 r ++ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1822 1583 1789 1583 1770 3539 0.84 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.21 1.00 1556 1583 1347 1583 387 3539 25 30 115 160 35 295 45 530 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 27 33 125 174 38 321 49 576 0 0 93 0 0 240 0 0 0 60 32 0 212 81 49 576 Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt 4 8 5 2 4 4 8 8 2 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 26.2 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 26.2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.46 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 394 401 341 401 264 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.15 OAS 0.19 16.5 16.1 8.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.2 0.1 0.3 16.6 16.2 9.1 B B A 16.4 B c0.16 0.62 18.8 1.00 3.5 22.3 C 19.1 B 0.05 0.20 16.7 1.00 0.3 16.9 B 22.7 22.7 0.40 4.0 3.0 1414 0.16 0.41 12.2 1.00 0.2 12.4 B 12.0 B 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 60 0.92 65 35 30 Perm 2 22.7 22.7 0.40 4.0 3.0 633 0.02 0.05 10.4 1.00 0.0 10.5 B 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.32 601 225 0.92 245 0 245 pm+pt 1 6 34.4 34.4 0.61 4.0 3.0 522 c0.06 0.22 0.47 5.7 1.00 0.7 6.4 A ++ r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 975 45 0.92 0.92 1060 49 0 17 1060 32 Perm 6 26.9 26.9 0.47 4.0 3.0 1676 c0.30 0.63 11.2 1.00 0.8 12.0 B 10.9 B 6 26.9 26.9 0.47 4.0 3.0 750 0.02 0.04 8.0 1.00 0.0 8.1 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 13.1 0.59 56.8 57.7% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service B 8.0 B Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total AM Primary Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL-'' SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4t+ 11 4 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 170 135 5 425 5 50 5 5 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 185 147 5 462 5 54 5 5 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 467 332 541 758 258 764 829 234 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 467 272 500 737 192 743 814 234 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 86 98 99 98 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1090 1183 397 312 750 270 281 768 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 342 236 236 36 29 27 Volume Left 11 5 0 36 18 5 Volume Right 147 0 5 0 5 16 cSH 1090 1183 1700 397 413 448 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 7 6 5 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.2 0.0 15.0 14.4 13.6 Lane LOS A A B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 14.7 13.6 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total PM Primary Home 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR r 4 r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1800 1583 1795 1583 0.57 1.00 0.69 1.00 1060 1583 1293 1583 70 30 55 125 40 360 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 76 33 60 136 43 391 0 0 49 0 0 221 0 109 11 0 179 170 Perm Perm Perm Perm 4 8 4 4 8 8 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 197 295 241 295 0.10 0.01 c0.14 0.55 0.04 0.74 30.1 27.2 31.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.3 0.1 11.7 33.5 27.3 43.0 C C D 31.3 36.1 C D 0.11 0.58 30.3 1.00 2.7 33.0 C t r' \. 1 4' NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR TT r t+ r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 741 3539 1583 174 3539 1583 100 1355 145 345 615 30 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 109 1473 158 375 668 33 0 0 39 0 0 12 109 1473 119 375 668 21 pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm 5 2 1 6 2 2 6 6 42.5 38.8 38.8 58.4 50.7 50.7 42.5 38.8 38.8 58.4 50.7 50.7 0.52 0.48 0.48 0.72 0.62 0.62 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 433 1683 753 430 2199 984 0.01 0.42 c0.17 0.19 0.12 0.07 c0.46 0.01 0.25 0.88 0.16 0.87 0.30 0.02 10.0 19.2 12.1 23.3 7.2 5.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.3 5.4 0.1 17.4 0.1 0.0 10.3 24.6 12.2 40.6 7.3 5.9 BC BD A A 22.6 18.9 C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 24.1 0.83 81.6 82.3% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service C 8.0 E Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Range Total PM Primary Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4T+ j 4, 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 400 105 5 395 15 115 5 5 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 435 114 5 429 16 125 5 5 5 5 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 vC, conflicting volume 446 549 769 981 492 981 1030 223 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 446 498 743 979 435 979 1033 223 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 51 98 99 97 97 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1111 955 258 219 512 176 203 781 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 565 220 231 83 53 27 Volume Left 16 5 0 83 42 5 Volume Right 114 0 16 0 5 16 cSH 1111 955 1700 258 266 346 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.32 0.20 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 34 18 6 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.3 0.0 25.5 21.8 16.3 Lane LOS A A D C C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 24.1 16.3 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 • • • Spring Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis • • • APPENDIX D LONG RANGE FUTURE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1• • • • • • • • • iu.switc; 1 IIOLT • ( ULLEVIG • • Appendix D ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Background AM 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR t \. 1 41 NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1900 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 35 0.92 38 0 0 Perm 4 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1820 0.80 1493 40 0.92 43 0 81 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 4 r- 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1806 1583 0.76 1.00 1417 1583 165 0.92 179 152 27 Perm 85 50 140 0.92 0.92 0.92 92 54 152 0 0 129 0 146 23 Perm Perm 4 8 4 8 8 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 224 238 213 238 0.05 0.02 c0.10 0.01 0.36 0.11 0.69 0.10 25.7 24.7 27.1 24.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 0.2 8.8 0.2 26.7 24.9 35.9 24.8 C C D C 25.5 30.3 C C 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 65 0.92 71 0 71 Prot 5 4.9 4.9 0.07 4.0 3.0 129 0.04 0.55 30.1 1.00 5.0 35.1 D ++ r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 755 40 0.92 0.92 821 43 0 15 821 28 Perm 2 32.8 32.8 0.49 4.0 3.0 1725 0.23 0.48 11.5 1.00 0.2 11.7 B 13.4 B 2 32.8 32.8 0.49 4.0 3.0 772 0.02 0.04 9.0 1.00 0.0 9.0 A +i 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 245 1390 65 0.92 0.92 0.92 266 1511 71 0 0 13 266 1511 58 Prot Perm 1 6 12.4 12.4 0.18 4.0 3.0 326 c0.15 0.82 26.4 1.00 14.5 40.9 D 40.3 40.3 0.60 4.0 3.0 2119 c0.43 0.71 9.5 1.00 1.2 10.6 B 14.8 B 6 40.3 40.3 0.60 4.0 3.0 948 0.04 0.06 5.6 1.00 0.0 5.6 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 16.6 0.71 67.3 66.0% 15 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 C Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••r•••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Background AM 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 ', 4- 4\ t r` I, 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4, 4, 4, Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 115 195 5 185 5 70 5 5 5 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 125 212 5 201 5 76 5 5 5 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 207 337 503 481 231 486 584 204 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 207 337 503 481 231 486 584 204 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 83 99 99 99 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1365 1222 456 477 808 478 416 837 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 353 212 87 33 Volume Left 16 5 76 5 Volume Right 212 5 5 22 cSH 1365 1222 470 647 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.18 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 17 4 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 14.4 10.9 Lane LOS A A BB Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 14.4 10.9 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Background PM 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement EBL Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 100 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 1 EBT EBR WBL 1- WBT WBR 4\ t \. 1 NBL NBT NBR SBL. SBT SBR 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1798 0.51 952 40 0.92 43 0 152 4 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 75 105 0.92 0.92 82 114 68 0 14 0 Perm Perm 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1804 0.58 1089 55 0.92 60 0 174 8 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 360 0.92 391 198 193 Perm 4 4 8 8 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 167 277 191 277 0.16 0.01 c0.16 0.12 0.91 0.05 0.91 0.70 36.3 30.8 36.3 34.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44.5 0.1 40.9 7.4 80.8 30.9 77.2 42.2 F C E D 63.3 53.0 E D 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 145 0.92 158 0 158 Prot 5 12.4 12.4 0.14 4.0 3.0 245 0.09 0.64 36.6 1.00 5.7 42.3 D ++ r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1935 75 0.92 0.92 2103 82 0 15 2103 67 Perm 2 49.0 49.0 0.55 4.0 3.0 1933 c0.59 1.09 20.4 1.00 48.9 69.2 E 65.3 E 2 49.0 49.0 0.55 4.0 3.0 865 0.04 0.08 9.6 1.00 0.0 9.7 A r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 250 875 40 0.92 0.92 0.92 272 951 43 0 0 16 272 951 27 Prot Perm 1 6 13.0 13.0 0.14 4.0 3.0 257 c0.15 1.06 38.4 1.00 72.4 110.7 F 49.6 49.6 0.55 4.0 3.0 1957 0.27 0.49 12.3 1.00 0.2 12.4 B 33.4 C 6 49.6 49.6 0.55 4.0 3.0 875 0.02 0.03 9.1 1.00 0.0 9.1 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 54.5 1.05 89.7 93.4% 15 FiCM Level of Service D Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 I �U Level of Service F Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Background PM 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 -� 1- 4 k 4\ t 1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL 1NBT 'WBRNBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 + 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 200 145 5 350 5 150 5 5 5 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 217 158 5 380 5 163 5 5 5 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 386 375 758 736 296 742 812 383 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 386 375 758 736 296 742 812 383 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 46 98 99 98 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1173 1183 303 338 743 320 306 664 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 397 391 174 33 Volume Left 22 5 163 5 Volume Right 158 5 5 22 cSH 1173 1183 310 483 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.56 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 81 5 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.2 30.5 13.0 Lane LOS A A D B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.2 30.5 13.0 Approach LOS D B Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total PM Second Home 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, di Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1900 35 0.92 38 0 0 Perm 4 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1820 0.72 1336 40 0.92 43 0 81 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 165 0.92 179 146 33 Perm 4. r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1796 1583 0.73 1.00 1361 1583 140 50 255 0.92 0.92 0.92 152 54 277 0 0 0 0 206 277 Perm Free 4 8 14.2 14.2 0.18 4.0 3.0 245 0.06 0.33 27.5 1.00 0.8 28.3 C 27.1 C 4 14.2 14.2 0.18 4.0 3.0 290 0.02 0.11 26.4 1.00 0.2 26.5 C 8 14.2 14.2 0.18 4.0 3.0 250 c0.15 0.82 30.4 1.00 19.3 49.7 D 21.3 C Free 77.4 77.4 1.00 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 65 0.92 71 0 71 Prot 5 4.7 4.7 0.06 4.0 3.0 1583 107 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.0 1.00 0.2 0.2 A 0.66 35.6 1.00 14.4 50.0 D r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 755 65 0.92 0.92 821 71 0 21 821 50 Perm 2 40.9 40.9 0.53 4.0 3.0 1870 0.23 0.44 11.2 1.00 0.2 11.4 B 14.0 B 2 40.9 40.9 0.53 4.0 3.0 836 0.03 0.06 8.9 1.00 0.0 8.9 A T r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 3433 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 3433 3539 1583 300 1390 65 0.92 0.92 0.92 326 1511 71 0 0 12 326 1511 59 Prot Perm 1 6 10.3 10.3 0.13 4.0 3.0 457 c0.09 0.71 32.1 1.00 5.2 37.4 D 46.5 46.5 0.60 4.0 3.0 2126 c0.43 0.71 10.8 1.00 1.1 11.9 B 16.1 B 6 46.5 46.5 0.60 4.0 3.0 951 0.04 0.06 6.4 1.00 0.0 6.4 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 17.0 {-ICM Level of Service B 0.72 77.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 69.1% ICU Level of Service C 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total PM Second Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 -t c ♦- k. 4\ T t\* l d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41+ 4t+ ) 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 195 195 5 355 5 70 5 5 5 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 212 212 5 386 5 76 5 5 5 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 391 424 579 753 212 546 856 196 vCl , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 391 424 579 753 212 546 856 196 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 80 98 99 99 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1164 1132 377 331 793 406 288 813 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 122 318 198 198 51 36 33 Volume Left 16 0 5 0 51 25 5 Volume Right 0 212 0 5 0 5 22 cSH 1164 1700 1132 1700 377 400 553 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 12 7 5 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 16.0 14.9 11.9 Lane LOS A A C B B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 15.6 11.9 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total PM Second Home 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement EBL Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 100 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1798 0.43 809 40 0.92 43 0 152 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 1583 1797 1.00 0.58 1583 1071 75 150 55 0.92 0.92 0.92 82 163 60 64 0 0 18 0 223 Perm Perm 4 8 4 4 8 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 0.23 0.23 0.23 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 182 357 241 0.19 0.84 43.5 1.00 26.8 70.3 E 58.2 E 0.01 0.05 35.7 1.00 0.1 35.8 D c0.21 0.93 44.6 1.00 37.9 82.5 F 26.2 C 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 450 0.92 489 0 489 Free Free 117.6 117.6 1.00 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 145 0.92 158 0 158 Prot 5 14.8 14.8 0.13 4.0 3.0 1583 223 0.09 c0.31 0.31 0.0 1.00 0.5 0.5 A 0.71 49.3 1.00 9.9 59.2 E r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1935 125 0.92 0.92 2103 136 0 18 2103 118 Perm 2 66.1 66.1 0.56 4.0 3.0 1989 c0.59 1.06 25.8 1.00 37.3 63.1 E 59.9 E 2 66.1 66.1 0.56 4.0 3.0 890 0.07 0.13 12.2 1.00 0.1 12.3 B ti r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 3433 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 3433 3539 1583 355 875 40 0.92 0.92 0.92 386 951 43 0 0 12 386 951 31 Prot Perm 1 6 13.0 13.0 0.11 4.0 3.0 379 c0.11 1.02 52.3 1.00 51.0 103.3 F 64.3 64.3 0.55 4.0 3.0 1935 0.27 0.49 16.5 1.00 0.2 16.7 B 40.8 D 6 64.3 64.3 0.55 4.0 3.0 866 0.02 0.04 12.3 1.00 0.0 12.3 B HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 49.2 HCM Level of Service D 0.99 117.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 91.5% ICU Level of Service F 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 • + . . . . S . S s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total PM Second Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41+ 41+ 111 4+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 355 145 5 485 5 150 5 5 5 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 386 158 5 527 5 163 5 5 5 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 533 543 807 1052 272 785 1128 266 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 533 543 807 1052 272 785 1128 266 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 36 98 99 98 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1031 1022 254 219 726 270 198 732 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 215 351 269 269 109 65 33 Volume Left 22 0 5 0 109 54 5 Volume Right 0 158 0 5 0 5 22 cSH 1031 1700 1022 1700 254 265 422 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.16 0.43 0.25 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 51 24 6 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 29.4 23.0 14.3 Lane LOS A A D C B Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 27.0 14.3 Approach LOS D B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total AM Primary Home 1: CR 114 & SH 82 3/7/2007 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 35 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) 4 - EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT t \. 1 WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 4 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1820 0.67 1250 40 0.92 43 0 81 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 165 0.92 179 129 50 Perm 4. 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1792 0.72 1337 185 50 0.92 0.92 201 54 0 0 0 255 Perm 4 8 4 4 8 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 0.21 0.21 0.21 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 r 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 335 0.92 364 0 364 Free Free 81.7 81.7 1.00 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 65 0.92 71 0 71 Prot 5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 263 333 281 0.06 0.03 c0.19 0.31 0.15 0.91 27.2 26.3 31.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.7 0.2 30.5 27.9 26.5 61.9 C C E 26.9 25.7 C C 4.1 4.1 0.05 4.0 3.0 1583 89 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.0 1.00 0.3 0.3 A 0.80 38.4 1.00 37.6 76.0 E ++ 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 755 70 0.92 0.92 821 76 0 22 821 54 Perm 2 41.8 41.8 0.51 4.0 3.0 1811 0.23 0.45 12.7 1.00 0.2 12.9 B 17.3 B 2 41.8 41.8 0.51 4.0 3.0 810 0.03 0.07 10.1 1.00 0.0 10.1 B » +i r 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 3433 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 3433 3539 1583 300 1390 65 0.92 0.92 0.92 326 1511 71 0 0 12 326 1511 59 Prot Perm 1 6 10.7 10.7 0.13 4.0 3.0 450 c0.09 0.72 34.1 1.00 5.7 39.8 D 48.4 48.4 0.59 4.0 3.0 2097 c0.43 0.72 11.8 1.00 1.2 13.1 B 17.4 B 6 48.4 48.4 0.59 4.0 3.0 938 0.04 0.06 7.0 1.00 0.0 7.1 A HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 19.4 0.75 81.7 71.6% 15 HCM Level of Service B Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 ICU Level of Service C Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total AM Primary Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41+ 41+ "j 49 49 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 200 195 5 480 5 70 5 5 5 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 217 212 5 522 5 76 5 5 5 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 527 429 652 894 215 685 997 264 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 527 429 652 894 215 685 997 264 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 77 98 99 98 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1036 1127 331 273 790 322 238 735 Direction, Lane # Volume Total 125 321 2bb 266 51 36 33 Volume Left 16 0 5 0 51 25 5 Volume Right 0 212 0 5 0 5 22 cSH 1036 1700 1127 1700 331 351 470 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 13 9 6 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 17.8 16.4 13.2 Lane LOS A A C C B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 17.2 13.2 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary' EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 1:CR114&SH 82 • • Long Range Total PM Primary Home 3/7/2007 • Movement Lane Configurations • Ideal Flow (vphpl) • Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor • Frt • Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) • Flt Permitted • Satd. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) • Peak -hour factor, PHF • Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) • Lane Group Flow (vph) • Turn Type Protected Phases • Permitted Phases • Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) • Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) • Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EBL EBT EBR WBL 4 r 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1798 1583 0.40 1.00 738 1583 100 40 75 155 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 109 43 82 168 0 0 65 0 0 152 17 0 Perm Perm Perm 4 4 4 8 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.21 0.21 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 154 330 0.21 0.01 0.99 0.05 47.3 38.0 1.00 1.00 68.0 0.1 115.4 38.1 F D 88.3 F 4-- k- `\ t WBT WBR NBL NBT +I r i ++ 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1797 1583 1770 3539 0.56 1.00 0.95 1.00 1037 1583 1770 3539 55 465 145 1935 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 60 505 158 2103 0 0 0 0 228 505 158 2103 Free Prot 8 5 2 Free 25.0 120.0 14.9 68.0 25.0 120.0 14.9 68.0 0.21 1.00 0.12 0.57 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 216 1583 220 2005 0.09 c0.59 c0.22 1.06 47.5 1.00 76.6 124.1 F 39.0 D c0.32 0.32 0.0 1.00 0.5 0.5 A 0.72 1.05 50.5 26.0 1.00 1.00 10.7 34.3 61.2 60.3 E E 56.9 E NBR SBL SBT SBR i t+ r 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1583 3433 3539 1583 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1583 3433 3539 1583 165 420 875 40 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 179 457 951 43 24 0 0 12 155 457 951 31 Perm Prot Perm 1 6 2 68.0 68.0 0.57 4.0 3.0 897 0.10 0.17 12.5 1.00 0.1 12.6 B 15.0 15.0 0.12 4.0 3.0 429 c0.13 1.07 52.5 1.00 61.9 114.4 F 68.1 68.1 0.57 4.0 3.0 2008 0.27 0.47 15.3 1.00 0.2 15.5 B 46.5 D 6 68.1 68.1 0.57 4.0 3.0 898 0.02 0.03 11.4 1.00 0.0 11.5 B HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 52.6 1.05 120.0 93.6% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service D 12.0 F Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 .•••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Long Range Total PM Primary Home 3: CR 114 & Frontage Road 3/7/2007 }I - i' .- `\ t /* j d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4T+ 41+ ) 4+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 460 145 5 505 5 150 5 5 5 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 500 158 5 549 5 163 5 5 5 5 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 93 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 554 658 932 1188 329 864 1264 277 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 554 658 932 1188 329 864 1264 277 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 20 97 99 98 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1012 926 205 182 667 235 164 720 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 272 408 280 280 109 65 33 Volume Left 22 0 5 0 109 54 5 Volume Right 0 158 0 5 0 5 22 cSH 1012 1700 926 1700 205 215 377 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.16 0.53 0.30 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 69 31 7 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 40.9 28.9 15.4 Lane LOS A A E D C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 36.4 15.4 Approach LOS E C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Page 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • •. • • • • • • . • • • • Two -Way Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 2/14/2007 Analysis Time Period Part_ Time Rolling PM Peak Highway CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2027 Project Description: Spring Valley Ranch Input Data Shoulder width It E Class I highway 17 Class II highway Terrain I— Level F Rolling Two-way hourly volume 860veh/h Directional split 58 / 42 ../— Lane width It Lane width It Jmrr North Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 No -passing zone 50 on % Trucks and Buses , PT 4 % Recreational vehicles, PR 1% Access points/ mi 0 Shoulder width ___ II Segment length, Lt mi Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-7) 0.93 Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9) 1.9 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9) 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.964 Two-way flow rate, vp (pc/h)=V/ (PHF' f� * fHV) 1042 vp ' highest directional split proportion2 (pc/h) 604 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed, SFM m'/h Observed volume, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFS FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vl/ fHV) mr/h Base free-flow speed, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width3, fLS (Exhibit 1.3 mi/h 20-5) Adj. for access points, fA (Exhibit 20-6) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS (FSS=BFFS-fLS fA) 43.7 mi/h Adj. for no -passing zones, fnp ( mi/h) (Exhibit 20-11) 1.7 Average travel speed, ATS ( rni/h) ATS=FFS-0.00776vP fnp 33.9 Percent Time -Spent -Following Grade Adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8) 0.94 Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-10) 1.5 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10) 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV=11(1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.980 Two-way flow rate'', vp (pc/h)=V/ (PHF' fG' fHV) 1014 vp' highest directional split proportion2 (pc/h) 588 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF(%)=100(1-e•3.°33873vp) 59.0 Adj. for directional distribution and no -passing zone, fd/hp(%)(Exh. 20-12) 9.9 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%)=BPTSF+f d/np 68.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 for Class I or 20-4 for Class II) C Volume to capacity ratio, v/c=Vp/ 3,200 0.33 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel, VMT.,5 (veh- mi)= 0.25Li(V/PHF) 0 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp\s2k3B0.tmp 3/7/2007 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Two -Way Page 2 of 2 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi)=V'Lt 0 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TTi5(veh-h)= VMTt5/ATS 0.0 Notes 1. If Vp >= 3,200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split Vp>= 1,700 pc/h, terminated anlysis-the LOS is F. Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 3/7/2007 3:52 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp\s2k3BO tmp 3/7/2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp1s2k370.tmp Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 2/15/2007 Analysis Time Period FT Total PM With Climb Lane Highway / Direction of Travel CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Anal sis Year 2027 Input Data Analysis Opposing Shoukle.t widtli It (- Class I highway Terrain Grade Length F Class II highway E Level f Rolling 1.70 mi Up/down 7.0 PHF 0.92% 0 Buses , PT 4 vehicles, PR 1% mi 0 Lane width _ tt -35Lane width _ ft Shoulder txidth_ (I Shore north Peak -hour factor, �, No -passing zone % Trucks and Arrow Recreational Access points/ _,,, Segment length, Lr mi direction vol., Vd 465veh/h direction vol., Vo 655veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 12.3 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv=1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.689 0.973 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 0.90 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(pc/h) vi=V /(PHF fHv" fG) 814 732 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi:h 3 Observed volume , Vf vet/h Free-flow speed. FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V/ fHv) 41.:: mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 0.3 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 f1s(Exh 20-5) 3.7 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fes fA) 41.3 milh Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776vP fop 29.0 milh Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 2.4 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv=1/ (1+ PT(ET-1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.947 0.996 Grade adjustment factors, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v1(pc/h) v=V/(PHF'fHv* f0) 534 715 Base percent time-spent-following4,BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"dt) 77.9 Adj. for no -passing zone, f00(%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 3.2 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f op 81.1 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4) D Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=Vp/ 1,700 0.48 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travet,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 215 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60=V'Lt 791 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMTt5/ATS 7.4 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 3/7/2007 •s•••.••••.••••.•••••.•••••••••r•••••••••r• Two -Way Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 2/14/2007 Analysis Time Period Full Time Rolling PM Peak Highway CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2027 Project Description: Spring Valley Ranch Input Data Shoulder width Rti 1— Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain E Level F Rolling Two-way hourly volume 985 vehlh Directional split 521 48 Lane width It --I. Lone width_ -_ It 'Mow 11(41h Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 No -passing zone 50 Arrow % Trucks and Buses , PT 4 % Recreational vehicles, PR 1% Access points/ mi 0 _ _ _ Shoulder width It , —« Segment length, Lt __ ,_ mi Average Travel Speed Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-7) 0.93 Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9) 1.9 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9) 1.1 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv=1l (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.964 Two-way flow rater, vp (pc/h)=V/ (PHF ' fG'fHv) 1194 vp * highest directional split proportion2 (pc/h) 621 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed, SFM milt Observed volume, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFS FFS=SFM+0.00776(• Vt/ fHv) milt Base free-flow speed, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width3, fLs (Exhibit 1.3 mi/h 20-5) Adj. for access points, fA (Exhibit 20-6) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS (FSS=BFFS-fLs fA) 43.7 mi/h Adj. for no -passing zones, fnp ( mi/h) (Exhibit 20-11) 1.4 Average travel speed, ATS (mi/h) ATS=FFS-0.00776vp fnp 33.0 Percent Time -Spent -Following Grade Adjustment factor, f6 (Exhibit 20-8) 0.94 Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-10) 1.5 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10) 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv=1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.980 Two-way flow rate, vp (pc/h)=V/ (PHF ' fG * fHv) — 1162 vp ' highest directional split proportion2 (pc/h) 604 Base percent time -spent -following, BPTSF(%)=100(1_e o.0ootrevp) 64.0 Adj. for directional distribution and no -passing zone, fd/hp(%)(Exh. 20-17) 8.8 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%)=BPTSF+f dnp 72.8 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 for Class I or 20-4 for Class II) 0 Volume to capacity ratio, v/c=Vp/ 3,200 0.37 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel, VMT1$ (veh- rni)= 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 0 file://CADocuments and Settings\Tyler\Local Sett:ngs\Temp\s2k3A4.tmp 3/7/2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . • • i . • • . • . • r • • . • • • Two -Way Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi)=V'Lt 0 Page 2 of 2 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h)= VMT15/ATS 0.0 Notes 1. If Vp >= 3,200 pc/h, terminate analysis -the LOS is F. 2. If highest directional split Vp>= 1,700 pc/h, terminated anlysis-the LOS is F. Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 3/7/2007 3:52 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp\s2k3A4.tmp 3/7/2007 • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • . • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 2/15/2007 Analysis Time Period PT Total PM With Climb Lane Highway / Direction of Travel CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Anal sis Year 2027 Input Data Analysis Opposing Shoulder width _ It r Class I highway ''1 Terrain \, Grade Length r Class II highway 1- Level r Rolling 1.70 mi Up/down 7.0 PHF 0.92% 0 Buses , P 4 T vehicles, PR 1% mi 0 'r- Lane width 11 -} Lane width _ It Shoulder width __________._ Il Show North/grout Peak -hour factor, / No -passing zone ,% % Trucks and Recreational Access points/ S _gnlent length, L1 mi _ direction vol., Vd 325veh/h direction vol., Vo 600veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 12.3 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHV=1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.689 0.973 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 0.90 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vI=V /(PHF'fHv' f0) 569 670 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -How Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h 3 Observed volume , Vt velr/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vt/ lily 41.3 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20.19) 0.4 milh Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fis(Exh 20-5) 3.7 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fig fA) 41.3 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v fop 31.3 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 2.4 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv=1/ (1+ PT(ETl)+PR(ER-1)) 0.947 0.996 Grade adjustment factor, f9 (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(perh) vi=V/(PHF'fHv' fG) 373 655 Base percent time -spent -following°, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdt) 71.3 Adj. for no -passing zone, fop(%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 3.9 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 75.2 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4) D Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=Vp/ 1,700 0.33 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT1$= 0.25L1(V/PHF: 150 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMTs0=V'L1 553 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TTt5(veh-h) TT75= VMT15/ATS 4.8 Notes 1.1f the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, 10=1.0 2. If vi(vd or va) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a arid b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp\s2k38A.tmp Version 4.1d 3/7/2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • •• • . file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp\s2k396.tmp Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE -IIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 2/15/07 Analysis Time Period 2026 Part -Time Total OnGradePM Highway / Direction of Travel CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Anal sis Year 2027 Input Data Analysis Opposing Shoulder vtidth It f r Class I highway '--\\ Terrain Grade Length f Class II highway r Level r Rolling 1.70 mi Up/down 7.0 PHF 0.92% 100 Buses , P 4 T vehicles, PR 1% mi 0 ` Lane width It -� Lane width It Shoulder width 11 - %ow not Peak -hour factor, No -passing zone % Trucks and ill Arron % Recreational Access points/ Segment length. Li mi direction vol., Vd 365veh/h direction vol., Vo 495veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 12.3 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor.fHV IHV=1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.689 0.973 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 0.90 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v1(pc/h) vi=V/(PHF'fHv' fG) 639 553 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3. SFM mi 'h 3 Observed volume , Vf vel -/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vf/ fHv) 41.3 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 2.0 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLs(Exh 20-5) 3.7 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLs fA) 41.3 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776vp foo 30.0 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks. ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 2.4 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV IHv=11(1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.947 0.996 Grade adjustment factors, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) v,=V/(PHF*fHv fG) 419 540 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"dt ) 69.5 Adj. for no -passing zone, fnp(%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 20.2 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 89.8 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4) E Volume to capacity ratio vlc v/c=Vp/ 1,700 0.38 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMTt5 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.25L7(V/PHF) 169 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60=V'L, 621 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT75(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 5.6 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speed3 on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 3/7/2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. . • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • . • . • • • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Company FHU Date Performed 2/15/07 Analysis Time Period 2026 Full -Time Total OnGradePM Highway / Direction of Travel CR 114 From/To Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2027 Input Data Analysis Opposing Shoulder width _ 11 �'' ( I Class I highway Terrain Grade Length r Class II highway I- Level I- Rolling 1.70 mi Up/down 7.0 PHF 0.92% 100 Buses , P 4 vehicles, PR 1% mi 0 Lane width ft ---). Lane width It --- Shoulder ..kith_______ It Peak -hour factor, No -passing zone �--= % Trucks and Sim^ tInrth Arrow•T % Recreational Access points/ Segment length, L1 nu direction vol., Vd 470veh/h direction vol., Vo 515veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 12.3 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fiiv fHV-1/ (1+ PT(ET-1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.689 0.973 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 0.90 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(pc/h) vi=V/(PHF`fHV' fG) 822 576 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mirh Observed volume3, Vt veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V1/ fHv) 41.3 milh Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 1.9 milh Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 f (Exh 20-5) 3.7 mi/h LS Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fls fA) 41.3 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776vp fop 28.5 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction (d) Opposing Direction (o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 2.4 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fm, fHv=1I (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.947 0.996 Grade adjustment factors, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi=V/(PHF'fHv' fG) 539 562 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdt ) 73.7 Adj. for no -passing zone, fop(%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 19.3 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f no 92.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS (Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4) E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V0/ 1,700 0.48 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.25Lr(V/PHF; 217 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60=V'L1 799 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT75(veh-h) TTtS VMT15/ATS 7.6 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a arid b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 Univers ty of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents and Settings\Tyler\Local Settings\Temp\s2k37E.tmp Version 4.1d 3/7/2007