The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-5617-A Application 2PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING P.O. Box 21638 FL -J, Little Rock, Arkansas 72221 501-225-0500 FAX: 501-225-0602 www.traffic-engineers.com RWA Traffic Study Addendum prepared for: DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION 1JPETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC • CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - P.O. BOX 21638 (501)225-0500 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road Little Rock, Arkansas IHSS Armor=r. ATi'KANTSAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ERNEST J. PETERS No. 4682 ,/f Project No.: P-1185 May 30, 2006 P1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. May 30, 2006 Mr. Tim Daters White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 RE, P1185 — Addendum to Traffic Study Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road Vicinity Additional Analysis to Previous Traffic Study Little Rock Dear Mr. Daters Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted a traffic study for the assessment of an application to the City of Little Rock by two developers (Deltic Timber Corporation and Whisenhunt Investments) for proposed land -use changes to the City Land -Use Plan (LUP) and proposed changes to the Master Street Plan (MSP) in Little Rock, Arkansas. The study conducted for Deltic Timber Corporation is dated April 26, 2006 and the study conducted for Whisenhunt Investments is dated April 4, 2006. The study area is bound by Rahling Road (to the north) Wellington Village Road (to the east), Pride Valley Drive (to the south) and Rahling Road future extension (to the west). As requested by the two aforementioned developers of property in the study area vicinity, Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted additional analysis (beyond the scope of the original reports) for projected future 10 -year PM peak hour traffic conditions to the study intersections relating to projected traffic operations in regard to the following five analysis scenarios: SCENARIO 1 • Not including Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes • Not including Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes • Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road • Includes 10 -year background growth • Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure A, "Scenario 1 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour." SCENARIO 2 • Includes Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes • Not including Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes • Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road Includes 10 -year background growth Mr. Tim Daters May 30, 2006 Page 2 • Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure B, "Scenario 2 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour." SCENARIO 3 • Includes Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes ■ Includes Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes • Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road • Includes 10 -year background growth • Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure C, "Scenario 3 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour." SCENARIO 3-A • Includes Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes a Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road • Includes 10 -year background growth • Includes additional lanes along Chenal Parkway at the study intersections • Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure C, "Scenario 3 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour." SCENARIO 4 • Not including Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes • Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes • Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road • Includes 10 -year background growth • Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure D, "Scenario 4 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour." The previous studies involved preparing estimated projected future 10 -year traffic volumes to include full build -out development of undeveloped tracts in the vicinity. The City LUP land uses were assumed for each tract except for the tracts included in the LUP Amendment application by the aforementioned developers. Ten-year growth applied to the existing thru traffic volumes on Chenal Parkway and on Rahling Road were also included in projected traffic volumes used in analysis of those studies. Capacity and level of service (LOS) analysis for projected traffic operations for the worst-case PM peak hour was conducted. This additional analysis associated with these five scenarios has been conducted to assess the approximate traffic volume contributions to each of the study intersections by the development of tracts requested for land -use plan changes by the two aforementioned developers. In the following sections of this letter report there are presented traffic data, study methods and findings of this traffic engineering investigation. This letter report is technical in nature. Analysis techniques employed are those most commonly used in the traffic engineering profession. Complete calculations and data are included in this report. i Mr. Tim Daters May 30, 2006 Page 3 As a part of this study, a direct comparison was made for the Whisenhunt Investments Tracts 1, 2, 15 and 31 as referenced in the Traffic Study dated April 4, 2006 and compared the trip generation of these tracts to the trip generation for the same tracts in the existing City Land Use Plan. The results of that comparison are shown on an attached table in the Appendix of this Addendum letter. A direct comparison was also made for the Deltic Timber Corporation Tracts 21, 24, 25, 26, 32 and 40 and compared the trip generation of these tracts to the trip generation for the same tracts in the existing City Land Use Plan. The results of that comparison are are shown on an attached table in the Appendix of this Addendum letter. Additionally, overall intersection capacity and LOS analysis was conducted for each of the analysis scenarios and the following is summarized on an attached table: • Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) • Intersection Capacity Utilization • Overall Intersection LOS. Detailed calculations for all capacity analysis for each of the five analysis scenarios are included in the Appendix of this Addendum. This study of the various land uses and tracts of the corridor study area has allowed an assessment of the approximate traffic volume contributions to the study intersections for each of the scenarios analyzed as a part of this study. This additional analysis is as reviewed with Tim Daters, Whisenhunt Investments and the City staff prior to the May 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and was presented at that Planning Commission meeting. Please call if you have further questions or require additional information. We stand ready to assist further as may be necessary. Please let us know if further analysis is needed. Sincerely, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Ernest J. Peters. P.E. President PETERS & ASSOCIATES t encrveeas, me _i APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Description FIGURES TRIP -GENERATION SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLES SCENARIO I ANALYSIS SCENARIO 2 ANALYSIS SCENARIO 3 ANALYSIS SCENARIO 3-A ANALYSIS SCENARIO 4 ANALYSIS LOS SUMMARY PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEER'. INC a, b `O 4 b b n N� 1 a 73s 4 20 b `O 4 463 1045 ° 7+ 335 d 20 341 355 1 A ,g2 4 ° 628 N N 4 A 210 En g0 4 A SF �„ rrara as wb OLDR CA o00 20 4 4 25 lu'T2 rmcl39 O Tr7d 33 MX Tracer?5 w b b ^K Tr4 17 150 p i 311 45-0 o- 8 0 NC Tmcrss '"" 210 -0 *-150 15 b d 35 +C . Trac :0 Tnon38 sa�p1'1 75 b d 160 h A Inc! 7 s MX tJ W cp (A ohY.•at: Q A _ �� R ap p �' cz o 0 4S�1 d h� I O MF' Qp tq 'L T-ci 27 S 1�,roc! 31 a RD. Ei XF 5k iS oa �r o Tmcl ]0 SIF EV IL 12. CS - Traci 2 d p L . 3' o C 1 Tract 23 ..7 Tart 29 URCM �� b Tract 1 Trap 3 (� i N ANDE O&MF Q 4 n a i 342 Tract 21 [n incl 9 e G El q 0 107 o- 220 r e �p BAWD 160 490 d 11 138 + �pp Saovcvo A !AI !r HFg4gsr£ €l m$ apt Traci 0 Q YmCid p 3Ts7 d r w MF •5• r+� C c Tars2 flilfi� Non L`fp' Ly Traci 79 a {)' o v— � Trac! 13 a + j �jjjl a SNC 6tydlsa c C � atc 0 J1 w �• Il J�ILII �� i 1 Trcd5 O a F'•O'er rre01 a ° 12w Tract t8 rACI d A, MF a C C e Trac! i 4 Tract8 0� �! 75 �aPJ fd Trap g C pp 135 p i 105 0 370-0 o- 590 • J w d 115 9 `D q .SF 1810-, 4 431 Tract 43 ° 62 b a 1714 o N a a 4 ( 70 cn W 10 130 p 4 265 cyl 2235 -0 *-2200 °' 1-0 15 p 4 5 127180 b d 110 p 4 60 d 1930-0 o- 1990 a, 4 A 120-0 *-135 655 b d 186 0• o U c C' °, 4 A N a b W N� 21p 4100 N 582-p- o- 578 SCENARIO 1 AAIALYSIS CONDITION: ANALYSIS CONDITION: PM PEAK HOUR - EXISTING TRAFFIC Not mhdng Oettic Proposed LUP Changes. PLUS FULL T PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Not Includinn Whisenhunt LUP Changes. PLUS 10 -YEAR BACKGROUND GROWTH With Whisenhunt MSP Changes. With completion of LaGrande and Rahling Extension to Kanis. SCEN RIO 1 FIGURE Ncv With 10 -Year Background Growth. (rhis includes needed change to Tract 20 along Kanis to Commercial). PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES A PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT No.: CRENAE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT PETERS & ASSOCUTES P1180 & P1185 tTrcn+�c »s GILittle Rock, Arkansas ��6 DATE: 5-24-2006 " *`w CA o w r' o can d b `o b b 44 '622 4 20 cr w 353 d b 4 565 t t30 ° b d 20 1 ro 1.90 q o- 3��a 392 b rr ro 4 tig �o g0 b 0A 1 ., R rn to D SAF - � Q rmcf 7s N MF LDR mo CooN 4,b b Q tom O O 3e 45 :? Trml 34 0 Tract 33 Mx Tract 35 4, b b 9 4 75-0 o- 16 C NC Tract 37 � Tmd � 150 p 4 331 k * " " 230-o o- 170 30 b d 45 II� Tma. Tgcl38 q�- 75 b d 80 Q, 4 rco rasa: Q a 4,0 N CA �� n T-13 4 Q ° 0 0 )C TV a a ukC a MF Trnc121, i.. /} rsk- C! N C3 ima 35 13 Tatl 77 Q J y4 �a" �nr o Tracl 30 9 � W .J� CS O I6 � T4 �2 Traci 24 lb. r C 4'3 Traci 23 f :•� p1 13 r X •„� SF Tract 29 URCH ,O •� Tract 1 Tract 3 i ry •� � 0 1 � a1vn� a r, ❑ a a MOC � 0 i 4 352 Tract 21 -fila 2 0 1621 4.236o r a t? 190-0 b 4990 C 286 b a. yy�4777 A MF q O Troc1 Zti Tract 1 Q, q a1 J RA ¢ MF C o T tract z � � a iao c NC .�.� rmct 19 o- ❑ tr,. C Trsd to A �� Saww Tract 5 O bLt7 a C F pp rrrG 1-: � a tx n=res Tran p �1 rTrad7 Tract 18 ''��i7 ,� dar ss. T�n°�3ts raa ej MF mow• C a wa C C '° Tinct 1� T=18t8 ti 15 r.r.a Tinct 9 �y Yiars to � A 6 o m A Z7 e... Rr'r� 185 p 4 120 c o J v 390-91 — 4-620 SF 135 p b GS 4ax 1920-0 t 451 Tract 43 ° O a 63 b V. 1794 w d 70 CD 0,4 a b b N N N N N O o 150 9 4 278 N a b b 2419-0 4-2300 a' 1-0 15 i 4 5 142 b d 180 120 9 4 65 2060 -0 4-2081 0 Ob 1 It, y` 4 ro 120 -0 o- 135 724 b d 188 v, En E N N F4 ,J rnNM0 CA N 21p 1110 N 653-o 4-618 'SCENARIO 2 ANALYSIS CONDMON: ARALYSIS OUR-CONDEION: With Det is Proposed LUP Changes. PM PEAK HOUR- NG TRAFFIC } Not including Whisenhunt LUP Changes. PLUS FULL ARBACKBUILD-OUT PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES PLUS 10-YEAR BACKGROUND GROWTH With Whisenhunt MSP Changes. With completion of LaGrande and Rahling Extension to Kanis. SCENARIO FIGURE No.: With 10-Year Background Growth. 1 (This includes needed change to Tract 20elongKanistoCammercal). PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES B J PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT No.: PETERS & ASSOCIATES P1180 & P1185 CHENAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT �1 INC. Little Rock, Arkansas • °'" s°"P �10'� DATE: 5-24-2006" l �N ou N q 842 4 20 4 s,03 1160.9 5 d 25 �5 40210 A 0 e '}23 230 cin R A 1IO 4 r'p o % �%p — 51= rS Kron - TZcA 36 CA CA o b MF LDR 20— o 0 0 O a 38 p i 45 au a2 Trod 3.q ❑ Tract 33 r..... MX Tract 35 a b w � nA Tracr 37 150 p 4 361 75-0 o- 16 C NC Tr„cr 3.1 °' 250 -0 o- 210 30 b d 50 •r� Tncl in Trrd 36 �°' F+14� j 100 b d 105 a 4 A inrt.I1 o a to�s C 3 c o 0 eS d K� rn2 MF G ,� �' Tmai2GrNd .w. Tns131 t'a C i-LAGE RD. $ GJ� Tract 27 .I�{F� i'1��[m a $ p L Wy d 7rad30 9 rr -4 6 Q 0 4� - Trad 24 w 5 p a act p c 1 Trod 23 ..� 2 Tract 2g tl RCH G SF 5 Trod 1 Trod.1 4 fo r Q Q ,M.,oc 4 382 Tract 21 162 q Tr;rn 2 e 6 t a3 a 4-241 o 0 flopO 190 298 b b 520 MF R r7 0 y WI Tract 0 YOC d roil p j7 A p Traet2 n r r F R a �IjPI luiJJ O �� [ I'ma t8 a m a m xrwCw Tract 13. n t NC 4e,c n sena 4 m 0 '�N C i nd 1 Trad 5 rr� d 9 du < 6 e F is � PI 1.Ill rmcst Twi �a Tm(.1 race n •® � C � C C sem„ '0N ¢art at a ,k�+ Tra51 rCir 00 Z1 h y. at 6�J D .. N b 195 S 4 120 .- .-----rt-may + iS -rO�• o 490 -0 4-700 Iso S' 5 1970-,, 4 531 T- r Tmct n3 ° a BS a a, 189¢ N _ WW�Wt a a d 70 41 4 V � rO 174 p 4 338 CA N o a b b 2439-o 4-2350 4' 15 p 4 5 182 b d 240 130 p 4 80 2140-0 o- 2196 0 $r rtp 2p ro 4 A 125 -0 o- 135 a 0 769 b d 188 N CA Ln P 4 A UI N b EA % ODN 21 4 140 N 698 a o- 668 A NALY3IS CONDITIgN� SCENARIO ANALYSIS CONDITION: PM PEAK HOUR- EXISTING TRAFFIC With Deltic Proposed LUP Changes. PLUS FULL BUILD -OUT PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES With Whisenhunt LUP Changes. PLUS 10 -YEAR BACKGROUND GROWTH With Whisenhunt MSP Changes. With completion aT LaGrande and Rahling Extension to Kanis. -SCENARIO 3 FIGURE No: With 10 -Year Background Growth. [his incudes needed change to Tract 20 along Kanis to Commercial). PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES C l PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT No.:PETERS CHENAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT & ASSOCIATES P1180&P1185 G2 Little Rock. Arkansas DATE: 5-24-2006 '� to W N N N o -155 4 20 to m w 6 i 413 b Z Aad 1g7y a b d 25 -S46 355 3 A e oL � (fi � w +j15 N Ln SF W TOO 36 N to LDR o o 20 p 4 25 OF a. ac' {2 Trhp 39 4 Trac) 33 +0 X X— T'"I 35 N b b O ; l , Tract 37 0 i 4 341 45 0 o- 8 •r. NC INC Tran 3d o- 190 15 b d 40 rot. Trxa 5G Trgel38 100 b d 105 a 4 .o Trost 11 MX N W FM - j N 4 Trdci3 Q ~ 13 N O O Irby �' rracl xs , S Q macs 31 aLLAGE Ra. S rnot 21 u�s� Trod 30 Tse o SF CS a s3 $ L .a q 17 d TOO 2-1 so— 0 N"- C 15 I'ma 23 .- TME! 29 RCH wkre. 0 „7,F., b Tract 1 Tmcl3 r0 4 N b �o O & MF sI— i 372 Tract 21 m hart 107 g 226 DII a ! b o- o r 160-0 5200r� b �i�� p �4GpG 148 b d �yaooaaa t a, MF o C ( Sc'F J`�� J i e[I 0 MacQ irsctA42, I • i41F Tract2 Orman n Tract 19 a p tN— ,. Tract 13 a �� ks C �6¢�� v 0 C x O TO I I a p s F a p[� [ ,C rmcE7 Tmcl 18 •0 TroctyG Oct .n ° CpO C sew Tra�c�7 y Tract 1 S5 Tr8cl9 145 p 4 105 r to A rn 470-o o- 670 • J a d b 130 9 SF• 1860b 4 511 Trac! 43 0 65 d ° 1814 N a G 70 41 4 8V . H A 154 p 4 318 O a b b 2250 -0 o-2250 °' `° 15 S 4 5 167 b d 240 120 p 4 75 O 2010 -0 o- 2108 0 % Ile 2, a, 4 A 125-0 o- 135 699 r 188 V n, N N j J O N - C 4 UI UI W b yl m N� 21p 4130 N 627 -0 4-628 ANALYSES CONOMON: SCENARIO a ANALYSIS COHaI7iaN: PM PEAK HOUR -EXISTING TRAFFIC . � Not including Deidc Proposed LUP Changes. PLUS FULL BUILD -OUT PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES With Whisenhunt LUP Changes. PLUS 10 -YEAR BACKGROUND GROWTH With Whisenhunt MSP Changes. With completion of LaGtande and Rahling Extension to Karim. SCE N R104 FIGURE No.: With 10 -Year Background Growth. Pis includes needed change to Tract 20 alongKanistoCommerial). PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES D PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT No.:PETERS CHENAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT & ASSOCIATES P1180&P1185 ,�'� Little Rock, Arkansas Km DATE: 5-24-2006 �� 1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. TRACT REFERENCE Existing Land -Use Plan PROPOSEDPM LAND USE SIZEENTER 24-HOUR WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR EXIT• Tract 1 Church 50 Acres 2,733 102 96 Tract 2 General Office 418,000 S.F. 4,602 105 518 Tract 3 Single Family Detached Housing 84 Lots 804 54 31 Tract 4 Single Family Detached Housing 20 Lots 191 13 7 Tract 5 Retail Nel hbornaad Commercial 48,000 S.F. 2,061 86 94 Tract 6 Retail Commercial (Auto Dealership) 64,000 S.F. 2,134 66 103 Tract 7 General Office 100,600 S.F. 1,108 25 125 'Tract 8 Retail Commercial (Auto Dealership) 42,000 S.F. 1,400 43 68 Tract 9 Retail Commercial 63,600 S.F. 2,731 114 124 Tract 10 Retail Commercial 87,000 S.F. 3,736 157 170 Tract 11 Retail Commercial 24,000 S.F. 1,031 43 47 Tract 12 General Office 24,600 S.F. 271 6 31 Tract 13 Retail Commercial 124,000 S.F. 5,325 223 242 Tract 14 Retail Commercial 68,400 S.F. 2,937 123 133 Tract 15 Multi -Family Attached Units 160 Units 1,075 64 35 Tract 16 Public Institution 86,000 S.F. 783 29 28 Tract 17 Retail Commercial 145,000 S.F. 6,226 261 283 Tract 18 Multi -Family Attached Units 120 Units 806 48 26 Tract 19 Multi -Family Attached Units 120 Units 806 48 26 Tract 20 Multi -Family Attached Units Retail Commercial 110 Units 75,000 S.F. 739 44 24 3,221 135 146 Tract 21 General Office Multi -Family Attached Units 85,000 S.F. 134 Units 936 900 21 54 105 29 Tract 22 General Office 45 000 S.F. 495 11 56 Tract 23 Retail Commercial 503,388 S.F. 21,615 906 982 Tracts 24, 25, 26 General Office Multi -Family Attached Units General Office General Office Retail Commercial Multi -Family Attached Units 91,100 S.F. 158 Units 17,000 S.F. 60,000 S.F. 90,000 S.F. 72 Units 1,003 1,062 187 661 3,865 484 23 63 4 15 162 29 113 35 21 74 176 1 16 Tract 27 Retail Commercial 74,000 S.F. 3,178 133 144 Tract 28 Retail Commercial 30,000 S.F. 1,288 54 59 Tract 29 General Office 212,000 S.F. 2,334 53 263 'Tract 30 Multi -Family Attached Units 248 Units 1,667 99 55 'Tract 31 Multi -Family Attached Units 152 Units 1,021 61 33 Tract 32 Multi -Family Attached Units Retail Commercial Retail Commercial 12 Units 32,000 S.F. 22,000 S.F. 81 1,374 945 5 58 40 3 62 43 Tract 33 Retail Nei hWmood Commercial 18,000 S.F. 773 32 35 Tract 34 Retail Commercial General Office 25,000 S.F. 25,000 S.F. 1,074 275 45 6 49 31 Tract 35 Single FamilyDetached Housing 20 Lots 191 13 7 Tract 36 Single Family Detached Housing 108 Lots 1,034 69 40 Tract 37 General Office 43,000 S.F. 473 11 53 Tract 38 Retail Nelghbornood Commercial 56,000 S.F. 2,405 101 109 Tract 39 Multi -Family Attached Units 58 Units 390 23 13 Tract 40 General Office 100,000 S.F. 1,101 25 124 Tract 41 Retail Commercial 164,000 S.F. 7,042 295 320 Tract 42 General Office 218,000 S.F. 2,400 1 55 270 Tract 43 Sin le Family Detached Housing 205 Lots 1,962 131 76 TOTALS: I TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING Proposed Full -Build Land -Use Plan I PROPOSEDTRACT REFERENCE LAND USE SIZE HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME 2,733 WEEKDAY PM PEAK _ENTER 102 HOUR EXIT _ 96 Tract 1 Church 50 Acres Tract 2 Retail Commercial General Office 209,000 S.F. 209,000 S.F. 8,974 2,301 376 52 408 259 Tract 3 Single Family Detached Housing 84 Lots 804 54 31 Tract 4 Single Family Detached Housing 20 Lots 191 13 7 Tract 5 Retail Neighbornood Commercial 48,000 S.F. 2,061 86 94 Tract 6 Retail Commercial Auto Dealership) 64,000 S.F. 2,134 66 103 Tract 7 General Office 100,600 S.F. 1,108 25 125 Tract 8 Retail Commercial Auto Dealership] 42,000 S.F. 1,400 43 68 Tract 9 Retail Commercial 63,600 S.F. 2,731 114 124 Tract 10 Retail Commercial 87,[3{]0 S.F. 3,736 157 170 Tract 11 Retail Commercial 24,000 S.F. 1,031 43 47 Tract 12 General Office 24,600 S.F. 271 6 31 Tract 13 Retail Commercial 124,000 S.F. 5,325 223 242 Tract 14 Retail Commercial 68,400 S.F. 2,937 123 133 Tract 15 Retail Commercial 180,000 S.F. 7,729 324 351 Tract 16 Public Institution 86,000 S.F. 783 29 28 Tract 17 Retail Commercial 145,000 S.F. 6,226 261 283 Tract 18 Multi-FamilyAttached Units 120 Units 806 48 26 Tract 19 Multi -Family Attached Units 120 Units 806 48 26 Tract 20 Multi -Family Attached Units Retail Commercial 110 Units 75,000 S.F. 739 44 24 3,221 135 146 Tract 21 Retail Commercial General Office 98,000 S.F. 98,000 S.F. 4,208 1,079 176 25 191 122 Tract 22 General Office 45,000 S.F. 495 11 56 Tract 23 Retail Commercial 503,388 S.F. 21,615 906 982 Tracts 24, 25, 26 Single Family Detached Housing Single Family Detached Housing General Office Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Mutti-Family Attached Units 21 Lots 18 Lots 17,000 S.F. 60,000 S.F. 90,000 S.F. 72 Units 201 172 187 2,576 3,865 484 13 12 4 108 162 29 8 7 21 117 176 16 Tract 27 Retail Commercial 74,000 S.F. 3,178 133 1 144 Tract 28 Retail Commercial 30,000 S.F. 1,288 54 59 Tract 29 General Office 212,000 S.F. 2,334 53 263 Tract 30 Muld-FamilyAttached Units 248 Units 1,667 99 55 Tract 31 Multi-Famlly.Attached Units 152 Units 1,021 61 33 Tract 32 Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial 6,000 S.F. 32,000 S.F. 22,000 S.F. 258 1,374 945 11 58 40 12 62 43 Tract 33 Retail Nel hbomood Commercial 18,000 S.F. 773 32 35 Tract 34 Retail Commercial General Office 25,000 S.F. 25,0150 S.F. 1,074 275 45 6 49 31 Tract 35 Single Family Detached Housing 20 Lots 191 13 7 Tract 36 Single Family Detached Housing 108 Lots 1,034 69 40 Tract 37 General Office 43,000 S.F. 473 11 53 Tract 38 Retail Nelghbomood Commercial 56,000 S.F. 2,405 101 109 Tract 39 Mulb-Family Attached Units 58 Units 390 23 13 Tract 40 Retail Commercial 100,000 S.F. 4,294 180 195 Tract 41 Retail Commercial 164,000 S.F. 7,042 295 320 Tract 42 General Office 218,000 S.F. 2,400 55 270 Tract 43 Single family Detached Housing 205 Lots 1,962 131 76 TOTALS: I TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING Trip Generation Summary - Development Tracts nnttir Trnrts Cmmnnrisnn Existing Land -Use Plan 24-HOUR WEEKDAYTWO-WAY PM PEAK . PROPOSEDTRACT .,WEEKDAY PROPOSEDTRACT .,WEEKDAY LAND USE SIZE VOLUMEREFERENCE VOLUMEREFERENCE Tract 21 General Office 85,000 S.F. 936 21 105 Multi -Family Attached Units 134 Units 900 54 29 Mill 201 'Tracts 24, 25, 26 8 Single Family Detached Housing 21 Lots Single Family Detached Housing 18 Lots 1,003 23 113 General Office 91,100 S.F. Multi -Family Attached Units 158 Units 1,062 63 35 General Office 17,000 S.F. 187 4 21 General Office 60,000 S.F. 661 15 74 Retail Commercial 90,000 S.F. 3,865 162 176 Multi -Family Attached Units 72 Units 484 29 16 Tract 32 Multi -Family Attached Units 12 Units 81 5 3 Retail Commercial 32,000 S.F. 1,374 58 62 Retail Commercial 22,000 S.F. 945 40 1 43 Tract 40 General Office 100,000 S.F. 1,101 25 124 TOTALS: ' " • TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING Proposed Land -Use Plan WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 24-HOUR TWO-WAY PROPOSEDTRACT .,WEEKDAY LAND USE SIZE VOLUMEREFERENCE Tract 21 Retail Commercial 98,000 S.F. 4,208 176 191 General Office 98,000 S.F 1,079 25 122 Tracts 24, 25, 26 Mill 201 13 8 Single Family Detached Housing 21 Lots Single Family Detached Housing 18 Lots 172 12 7 General Office 17,000 S.F. 187 4 21 Retail Commercial 60,000 S.F. 2,576 108 117 Retail Commercial 90,000 S.F. 3,865 162 176 Multi -Family Attached Units 72 Units 484 29 1 16 Tract 32 Retail Commercial 6,000 S.F 258 11 12 Retail Commercial 32,000 S.F. 1,374 58 62 Retail Commercial 22,000 S.F. 945 40 43 Tract 40 Retail Commercial 104,000 S.F. 4,294 1 180 195 TOTALS: I MR.* TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING Whicauhuuf Trark Camnarisnn TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING ' TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING WEEKDAY Existing Land -Use Pian PROPOSEDTRACT .,WEEKDAY LAND USE SIZE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME ENTER 24-HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUMEREFERENCE WEEKDAY PM PEAK 102 HOUR 96 Tract 1 Church 50 Acres 2,733 Tract 2 General Office 418,000 S.F. 4,602 105 518 Tract 15 Multi -Family Attached Units 160 Units 1,075 64 35 Tract 31 Multi -Family Attached Units 152 Units 1,021 61 33 332 682 TOTALS: TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING ' TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME ENTER EXIT 915 1,147 _2,062_ PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. I J I _/ rA ■ a.y Queues Pagel 2: Rahling Road & Chenal Parkway 5/30/2006 t -A --.I, Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SB7 SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 209 228 98 683 371 525 125 1796 635 217 1123 161 We Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.28 1.09 0.55 1.02 0.56 1.05 0.58 0.94 0.58 0.15 Control Delay 78.3 75.5 27.1 121.4 60.0 85.2 82.2 45.0 4.9 111.7 24.7 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.3 75.5 27.1 121.4 60.0 85.2 82.2 45.0 4.9 111.7 24.7 4.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 106 117 37 -398 180 -418 59 1050 164 220 391 25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 164 92 #526 234 #740 m52 m728 m107 #388 460 53 internal Link Dist (ft) 770 430 1387 1433 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 334 391 348 624 689 516 230 1716 1086 230 1943 1093 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiiiback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.63 0.58 0.28 1.09 0.54 1.02 0.54 1.05 0.58 0.94 0.58 0.15 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 2: Rahling Road & Chenal Parkway 1I5/30/2006 --,, 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL VVBT WBR NBL _ NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR Lane Configurations n tt r tt r TT tt F Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1904 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 _� 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 6.95 1.00 1.00. Satd. Flow (prat) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 192 210 90 628 341 483 115 1652 584 200 1033 148 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) 209 228 98 683 371 525 125 1796 635 217 1123 161 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 45 0 0 10 0 0 32 0 0 31 Lane Group Flow (vph) 209 228 53 683 371 515 125 1796 603 217 1123 130 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 5 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 ' 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 13.1 14.3 23.4 27.0 28.2 47.2 9.1 73.7 100.7 19.0 83.6 96.7 Effective Green. g (s) 14.1 15.3 25.4 28.0 29.2 49.2 10.1 74.7 102.7 20.0 84.6 98.7 Actuated gC Ratio 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.32 0.07 0.49 0.67 0.13 0.55 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 352 302 624 671 506 225 1717 1056 230 1944 1056 vs Rat'16" rot' 0.06 0.06 0.01 c0.20 0.10 c0.13 0.04 c0.51 0.10 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.19 0.28 0.07 v% Ratio 0.67 0.65 0.18 1.09 0.55 1.02 0.66 1.05 0.57 0.94 0.58 0.12 Uniform Delay. d1 67.7 66.8 55.3 63.0 56.5 52..4 69.8 39.6 13.8 66.4 22.9 10.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.52 0.78 1 00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 5.2 4.1 0.3 64.6 1.0 44.5 0.3 22.7 0.1 43.5 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 72.9 70.8 55.6 127.6 57.5 96.9 81.2 43.2 10.9 110.0 24.2 10.8 Level of Service E E E F E F F D B F C B Approach Delay (s) 68.8 100.9 37.0 35.1 Approach LOS E F D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 55.7 HCM Level of Service E ROM Volume to Capacityratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 3 5: La Grande & Chenal Parkway t 1I5/30/2006 i --*- Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WER Ni3L NST NBR SBL 5BT SBR - Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 174 150 533 239 372 246 2177 225 139 1886 60 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.86 0.42 1.29 0.78 0.91 1.26 1.2E 0.19 1.17 1.20 0.06 Control Delay 61.6 102.7 27.6 192.4 78.6 54.7 199.4 156.5 2.3 179.2 123.4 1.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.6 102.7 27.5 192.4 78.6 54.7 199.4 156.5 2.3 179.2 123.4 1.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 104 175 69 --680 234 217 -309 1434 13 --173 1191 5 Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 #309 113 #913 315 317 m#491 91566 m28 m#26fn#1223 m13 lnternal Link dist (€t) 226 219 1598 659 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 314 206 361 414 423 411 195 1724 1210 119 1571 1036 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.37 0.84 0.42 1.29 0.57 0.91 1.26 1.26 0.19 1.17 1.20 0.06 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity. q ae;.ie is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4 5: La Grande & Chenal Parkway 5/30/2006 Movement Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) At Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) EBL 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 EBT t 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 EBR if 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1-00 1583 WBL '� 1900 4-0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 WBT t 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 WBR r 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 NBL �$ 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 NBT tt 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 NBR r 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1-00 1583 Volume (vph) 107 160 138 490 220 342 226 2003 207 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 116 174 150 533 239 372 246 2177 225 RTOR Reduction {vph) 0 0 16 0 0 45 0 0 31 Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 174 134 533 239 327 246 2177 194 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green. G (s) 26.3 15.6 31.6 35.0 24.3 33.7 16.0 74.0 109.0 Effective Green. g (s) 27.3 16-6 33.6 36.0 25.3 35.7 17.0 75.0 111.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.11 0.22 0.23 0.16 0.23 0.11 0.49 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3-0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 201 345 414 306 367 195 1724 1182 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.09 0.04 c0.30 0.13 0.06 0-14 c0.62 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0-15 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.87 0.39 1.29 0.78 0.89 1.26 1-26 0.16 Uniform Delay. dl 55.8 67.6 51.4 59.0 61.7 57.3 68-5 39.5 6.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 0.99 0-98 0-72 Incremental Delay. d2 0.7 29.9 0.7 146.5 12.2 22.8 147.3 122.3 0.1 Delay (s) 56.5 97.6 52.2 205.5 73.9 80-1 215.3 161.0 5-D Level of Service E F D F E F F F A Approach Delay (s) 71.3 137-2 152.8 Approach LOS E F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 135.0 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 111-4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. F 16.0 H SBL 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 128 0.92 139 0 139 P rot 1 9.4 10.4 0.07 5.0 3.0 120 0.08 SST tt 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 1735 0.92 1886 0 1886 0 67.4 68.4 0-44 5.0 3.0 1572 c0- 53 1.16 1-20 71.8 42.8 0.97 0.68 118-7 94.6 188-5 123.6 F F 124.5 F SBR e 1900 4.0 1 00 0.85 1.00 1583 1 00 1583 55 0.92 60 12 48 pm+ov 7 6 93.7 95.7 0.62 5.0 30 1025 0.01 0.02 0.05 11.4 0.25 0.0 2.9 A PM Peak Hour P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 5 9: Rahling Road & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 --a. *-- -4\ t L;arie.Group EBL EBT EBR VrBL VVBT NBL NBT NBR SST Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 1136 386 362 803 324 180 176 9 vlc Ratio 0.04 0.78 0.32 0.59 0.39 0.42 0.38 0.37 0.06 Control delay 35.8 24.3 1.2 36.2 12.5 32.1 9.2 8.7 36.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.8 24.3 1.2 38.2 12.5 32.1 9.2 8.7 36.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 226 0 79 72 66 2 0 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 409 20 174 306 160 69 64 20 Internal Link Dist (ft) 879 950 722 327 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 180 1880 1206 803 2385 778 477 477 312 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.04 0.60 0.32 0.45 0.34 0.42 0.38 0.37 0.43 Intersection Summary Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21-9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Page 6 9: Rahling Road & Kirk Road Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group -A -- 4\ t 0.i 1I5/30/2006 __*� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi tt r M 0 M ll� r *T+ 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. Lane'"Wil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.87 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0-94 Flt Protected1.0 0.95 1.0© 0 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3537 3433 1512 1504 1732 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3537 3433 1512 1504 1732 Volume (vph) 6 1045 355 333 735 4 298 5 323 2 3 4 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. Flaw (vph) _ 7 1136 386 362 799 4 324 5 351 2 3 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 142 0 0 0 0 139 140 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1136 244 362 803 0 324 41 36 0 5 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Split Perm Split Protected Phases 5 2 8 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green. G (s) 3.9 36.0 52.8 13.0 45.1 16.8 16.8 16.8 1-0 Effective Green. g (s) 4.9 37.0 54.8 14.0 46.1 17.8 17.8 17.8 2.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.43 0.63 0.16 0.53 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.02 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 100 1509 999 554 1879 704 310 308 40 W Ftatio Prot 0.00 c0.32 0.05 c0.11 0.23 c0.09 0.03 c0.0 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.75 0.24 0.65 0-43 0.46 0.13 0.12 0.13 Uniform Delay. d1 38.8 21A 7.0 34.1 12.3 30.3 28-2 28.1 41-5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 0.3 2.2 0.1 2.8 0.2 2.2 0.9 0.8 1.4 Delay (s) 39.1 23.2 7.1 36.9 12.5 32.4 29.1 28.9 43.0 Level of Service D C A D B C C C Approach Delay (s) 19.2 20.1 30.6 Approach LOS B C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 21-9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 7 12: Wellington Village & Kirk Road II 5/30/2006 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SSL SBT Lane Configurations + Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume veh/h) 20 20 615 125 75 625 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 22 668 136 82 679 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1191 pX. platoon unblocked VC. conflicting volume 1171 668 804 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 1171 668 804 tC. single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 95 90 cM capacity (veh/h) 167 400 816 Direction. Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SBI SB 2 98 3 - Volume `dotal 22 22 668 136 82 340 340 Volume Left 22 0 0 0 82 0 0 Volume Right 0 22 0 136 0 0 0 cSH 167 400 1700 1700 816 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.05 0.39 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 4 0 0 8 0 0 Control Delay (s) 29.8 14.5 0.0 0-0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 22.1 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 8 15: Arkansas Systems & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 Movement ESL EBT EBR W6L WBT WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT SM. Right Turn Channelized Yes Volume (veh1h) 150 210 75 180 150 311 40 380 170 300 280 80 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) 163 228 82 196 163 338 43 413 185 328 304 87 Approach Volume (veh/h) 473 359 641 717 Crossing Volume {veh/h} 826 620 717 402 High Capacity (veh/h) 718 848 784 1009 High v/c {veh/h} 0.66 0.42 0.82 0.71 Low Capacity (veh/h) 565 679 622 822 Low v/c {veh/h} 0.84 0.53 1-03 0.87 �rtierse�vri-Sumrrta , � — — - -- - - - - - Maximum v/c High 0.82 Maximum v/c Low 1.03 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.4% ICU Level of Service >_ Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 9 21: Wellington Village & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 t II i Lane Group ML WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 78 388 246 113 658 vIc Ratio 0.57 0.25 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.25 Control Delay 37.5 8.7 8.7 0.6 4.5 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 37.5 8.7 8.7 0.6 4.5 3.9 Queue Leng, 50th (ft) 71 0 54 5 11 37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 31 101 15 35 86 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 762 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 200 'Base Capacity (iph)'„ 575 567 2279 1396 950 2628 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 U Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vJc Ratio - 0.27 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.25 Intersection Summary Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 10 21: Wellington Village & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 { *Q t II t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SSL SBT Lane Configurations Vi if tt r Vi Tt Ideal Flow (vphpll 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Utl.'Factor,_ 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Fri 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 973 3539 Volume (vph) 143 72 357 226 104 605 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 155 18 388 246 113 658 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 66 0 52 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 12 388 194 113 658 Turn Type Perm pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Greeri.=G (s)'11.8 11.8 48.8 60.6 57.2 57.2 - Effective Green. g (s) 11.8 11.8 48.8 60.6 57.2 57.2 Actuated'g7C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.63 0.79 0.74 0.74 _ Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 271 243 2243 1328 768 2629 v/s Ratio Prot 66-09 0.11 0.02 0.01 60.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.10 0.10 vlc Ratio 0.57 0.05 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.25 - Uniform Delay. d1 30.3 27.8 5.8 2.0 2.9 3.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.31 2.60 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 33.2 27.9 7.7 5.2 3.0 3.4 = Level of Service C C A A A A Approach Delay (s) 31 A 6.7 3.3 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay8-6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume t6 Capacity „ratio n 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection CapacityUtilization 33.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 6 Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 11 23: Chenal Parkway & Wellington Hills *-- I * 15/30/2006 i 4/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBI. SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 1967 67 76 1863 468 101 120 '0.33-0.20 65 370 288 289 We Ratio 4.55 0.95 0.07 0.71 0.91 0.47 0.74 0.72 0.47 0.79 Control Delay 70.3 29.7 4.2 103.3 36.6 11.3 98.7 68.2 17.7 70.9 63.7 57.7 Queue Delay 0.0 170.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Delay 70.3 200.0 4.2 103.3 37.7 11.3 98.7 68.2 17.7 70.9 63.7 57.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) '68 1098 15 77 791 135 100 62 1' 167 143 187 Queue Length 95th (ft) m69 m1095 m15 #165 909 215 #197 97 49 249 200 #347 Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 664 314 404 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 150 200 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity(vph) 228 2114 956 107 2137 1034 141 383 220 546 633V1 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced'v/c Ratio 0.55 1.38 0.07 0.71 0.82 0.45 0.72 0.31 0.28 0.68 0.45 0.79 Intersection Summary _ # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 40.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity. ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 �.. �. " Page 12 23: Chenal Parkway & Wellington Hills 15 5/30/2006 --V t 1 Movement EBL EST EER WBL WBT WBR NBL NEST NBR SBL SOT SBR Lane Configurations M ft r ft r tt r tt r Idea I"Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Losttime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00, Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.0 1,00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3 11 539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 "1.,00 3433 3539 1583 Fit Permi#ted 0.95 "0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 115 1810 62 70 1714 431 93 110 60 340 265 266 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) 125 1967 67 76 1863 468 101 120 65 370 288 289 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 0 83 0 0 58 0 0 88 Lane Groep Flow (vph) 125 1967 56 76 1863 385 101 120 7 370 288 201 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green. G {s) 9.2 88.8 88.8 8.4 88.0 88.0 11.0 14.7 14.7 22.1 25.8 25.8 Effective Green. g (s) 10.2 89.8 89.8 9.4 89.0 89.0 12.0 15.7 15.7 23.1 26.8 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.58 "0.58 0.08 0.10 '"0. 1'0 0.15 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 2064 923 108 2045 915 138 361 161 515 616 275 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 60.56 0.04 60.53 0.06 0.03 60.11 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.24 0.00 60.13 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.95 0.06 0.70 0.91 0.42 0.73 0.33 0.04 0.72 0.47 0.73 Uniform Delay. d1 69.7 30.1 13.9 70.9 29.0 18.1 69.4 64.3 62.4 62.4 57.2 60.2 Progression Factor 0.96 0.85 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.08 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 3.7 0.0 18.7 6.6 0.3 18.0 2.5 0.5 4.7 2.5 15.3 Delay (s) 67.9 29.4 6.9 89.7 35.6 18.4 87.8 66.0 63.0 67.3 62.5 80.5 Level of Service E C A F D B F E E E E F Approach Delay (s) 30.9 34.0 73.0 69.9 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 40.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity. ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 �.. �. " Intersection Capacity Utilization of,.. 80.3% ICU Level Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 13 25: Kanis Rd. & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Lane Group — WBR VVBR2 SBI. SBR SEL2 SEL Lane Gro,.,, .=1ow (vph) 628 109 223 16 23 633 v/c Ratio 0.35 0,10 0.35 0.03 0,05 0.26 Control Delay 8.7 2.6 40.8 5.9 4.0 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.7 2.6 40.8 5.9 4.0 4.1 Queue Length 50th (fit) 53 0 110 0 3 58 Queue Length 95th (ft) 153 23 140 m3 m7 m88 Internal Link Dist (ft) 749 287 421 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 `Base Capacity (vph) 1808 1065 1025 616 532 2430 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.10 0.22 OM 0.04 0.26 Intersection rn Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 14 25: Kanis Rd. & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Nt-- 4,, \0. 1,J `-* \-► Movement WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SEL2 Lane Configurations rr r c0.23 ?I 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 v/c Ratio" " Ideal Flow (vphp1) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane U' 1. Factor 0.68 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frt 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 FIt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 W 0.95 " 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 2787 1583 3433 1583 1770 3433 Flt Permitted W 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 434 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 2787 1583 3433 1583 627 3433 Volume (vph) 578 100 205 15 21 582 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 , Adj. Flow (vph) r 628 109 223 16 23 633 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 12 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 628 67 223 4 23 633 Turn Type Perm pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 6 4 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 4 2 Actuated Green. G (s) 46.0 46.0 13.5 16.0 53:5 53.5 Effective Green. g (s) 47.0 47.0 14.5 18.0 54.5 54.5 Actuated g/C 'Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.4'9 ' 0.23 0.71' 0.71 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1701 v/s_Ratio"'Prot c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 v/c Ratio" " 0.37 "7.5 Uniform Delay. dl c0.18 Progression Factor 1,00 Incremental Delay. d20.6 0.03 Delay (s) _ 8.2 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 7,9 Approach LOS A rtersection Summary 966 646 452 496 2430 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 c0.06 0.00 ' 0.00 c0.18 0.04 0.00 0.03 _0.07 6.1 27.1 22.6 3.7 4.0 1.00 1.49 1.05 0.91 0.89 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.2 40.8 23.8 3.4 3.8 A D C A A 39.6 3.8 D A HCM Average Control Delay 10.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 A Act.uated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2°/n 'ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c mCrifical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 15 28: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Rd. 5/30/2006 --* 4--- t -A --► Lane Group EBL EBT EBR, WBL WBT WBR NOL NST NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 2098 712 204 2163 5 350 351 60 5 4 v/c Ratio 0.23 9.00 0.51 1.01 0.94 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.07 0.0 Control Delay 57.9 35.0 2.5 106.8 22.5 12.4 102.6 102.5 15.0 73.8 581 Queue Delay 0.0 193.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.9 228.5 2.5 106.8 23.2 '3812 12.4 102.6 102.5 15.0 73.8 582 Queue Length 50th (ft) A -441 46 -166 1 --375 -376 11 5 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) m19 #1265 142 m#142 #1304 m2 #604 #603 38 21 16 Internal Link dist (ft) 804 757 664 161 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 100 Base Capacity (vph) 69 2091 1396 201 2298 1029 349 350 373 69 69 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 647 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 1.45 0.51 1.01 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.07 0.06 Intersection Summary - Voiume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. it 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. -queue may be longer. Queue shownis maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. NOW Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 16 28: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Rd. 5/30/2006 --,* --I, -,* ,(- +-- ,- � t i -V Movement EBL EBT EBR VVBL VVBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *i ft r Actuated Cycle Length (s) ft r 93.2% ICU Level of Service F 4 15 c Critical Lane Group ideal" low"(Vppi) 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 'Im 4,0 La6ei" Utif.''Fa'dtor 0 11 0 - 1.00 11 0 1 .66", 'I''. -Ob", 0,97 0.95 1 1.00 6.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0-93 'Pit Protected 6 1.00 0.95 1.06bo '1.06 0.96 0.96- 1.00 0.9 1.00 Sata *'Flow (prot)' 1770 353-9 1 583 3433 3539 1583 1681 1686 1583 1770 1723 Fit Permitted" 0'."9'6 1.00 1.0 0.06 i.00 �11.00 0.35 0-95 100 095 1.00 Satd.'Flow (parm) 17,70 3539 1 1583 3433 3539 1583 1681 1686 1583 1770 1723 - Volume (vph) 15 1930 655 188 1990 5 643 2 55 5 2 2 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) 16 2098 712 204 2163 5 699 2 60 5 2 2, RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 114 0 0 1 0 0 44 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 2098 598 204 2163 4 350 351 16 5 2 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Split Perm Split Pi-otected Phases 5 2 8 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Oreen."' (s) 1 '2.'b 87.0 118.0 11,0 96.0 96.0 31,0 31-0 31-0 5.0 5.0,�W. Effective Green .1 . g (s 3.0 88.0 120,0 IZO 97,0 97.0 32.0 32-0 32.0 6,0 6-0 Actuated g/C kitfio 6.02 0.57 0.78 0.08 0.63 0.63 0,21 0,21 0.04 0.04.6= Clearance Time I (s) 5-0 5.0 5-0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3,0 3,0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3-0 3,0 3,0 3-0 3-0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 34 2022 1275 268 2229 997 349 350 329 69 67 V/S Ratio Not 0.61 r,0.59 0_10 c0.06 c0-61 c0.21 0-21 C0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0,00 0,01 v/c Ratio 0.47 11.04 0.41 0,76 0-97 000 1-00 100 0.05 0.07 0.03 Uniform Delay. dl 74.7 33.0 5.9 69-6 27,1 10-6 61.0 61-0 48.8 71.3 71,2 Progression Factor 0.74 0.69 1.96 0.81 0-65 1.32 0-90 090 1.03 100 1. Incremental Delay. d2 6.8 26.1 6-2 6.4 9.3 0-0 48.2 48.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 61.0 45-4 11.8 62,7 26.1 119 103,2 103.1 50-2 71.8 71.4 Level of Service E D B E C 8 F F D E E Approach Delay (s) 37.0 29.2 99.0 716 Approach LOS D C F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154,0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 17 31: Chenal Parkway & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 -- t II i Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL VVBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 2429 138 196 2682 182 98 114 355 114 171 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.82 0.12 0.63 0.88 0.63 0.62 „0.53 0.75 0.45 0.56 Control Delay 72.9 14.1 0.1 62.7 19.8 78.4 86.0 28.0 75.0 67.3 '0.0 33.9 Queue Delay 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.9 15.3 0.1 62.7 19.8 78.4 86.0 28.0 75.0 67.3 33.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 602 0 97 704 92 97 22 179 07 66 Queue Length 95th (ft) m91 509 m0 m106 m660 136 #165 89 238 175 150 .Internal Link dist (ft) 309 464 678 1870 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 gaseCapacfty (vph) 223 2972 1133 312 3064 290 157 217 471 255 303 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0-91 0-12 0.63 0.88 0.63 0.62 0.53 0.75 0.45 0.56 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m' Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 18 31: Chenal Parkway & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 -'t` t 1 �► , Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' � '�'� '� W. t 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 4.0 Lane �lftl. Factor 0.97 0-91 1.U0 0.97 0.9 0.971.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1-00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protec%d 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0:95 1.bd0, 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5003 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 FIt Rermitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1-00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5003 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 130 2235 127 180 2200 268 167 90 105 327 105 157 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 Add. Flaw (vph) 141 2429 138 196 2391 291 182 98 114 355 114 971 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 35 0 10 0 0 0 83 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 2429 103 196 2672 0 182 98 31 355 114 85 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 8 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green. G (s ) $ 9 .89. 0 ....6 .... 101.0 12.9 93.0 . _ .12.0 ._:...a.. 12.0 _., ...... 12.0 20.1 20-1 20.1 Effective Green. g (s) 9.9 90.0 103.0 13.9 94.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.58 0.67 0.09 0.61 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14 0-14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 2972 1100 310 3054 290 157 134 470 255 217 Ws Ratio Prot-"' 0.04 0.48 0.01 c0.06 c0.53 c0.05 0.05 c0.10 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 0.05 We Ratio 0.64 0.82 0.09 0.63 0.88 0-63 0.62 0.23 0.76 0.45 0.39 Uniform Delay. d1 70.3 25.5 9.0 67.6 25.1 68.2 68.1 65-8 64.0 61.1 60.6 Progression Factor 0-93 0.49 0.00 0.88 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 3.2 1.4 0.1 1.4 1.3 9.917.3 3.9 10.8 .�74 5.6 5. Delay (s) 68.5 14.0 0.1 60.6 19.7 78 '' .. 85.4 69.8 7 66.7 65.8 Level of Service E B A E B E F E E E E Approach Delay (s) 16.1 22.5 77.5 70-9 Approach LOS B C E E Intersection Summ- ary HCM Average Control Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s)154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service ❑ Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 19 33: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Road 5/30/2006 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network \ Ar-, I Lane Group SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Group Flow (vph) 2353 657 571 2326 295 483 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.42 0.64 0.55 0.74 0.76 Control Delay 26.0 0.1 39.1 0.8 77.7 48.3 Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.2 0.1 39.1 0.9 77.7 48.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 486 0 273 34 148 409 Queue Length 95th (ft) m415 m0 m317 37 202 556 Inteai Link hist (ftj _ m 308 410 266 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 �8ase %apac ty (vph) 2780 1583 892 4232 424 637 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 646 0 0 .6illback Cap Reductn 55 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.42 0.64 0:65 0.70 0.76 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 20 33: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Road 5/30/2006 0-,. *N 1 .0-4 Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations ttt ttt Yii r Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4-0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane U110. Factor--- 0.91 1-00 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1-00 0.95 1.00 _ 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 5085 1583 3433 5085 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 0-95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 3433 5085 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 2165 604 525 2140 271 444 , Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2353 657 571 2326 295 483 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2353 66r- 571 2326 295 482 Turn Type Free Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 1 Permitted Phases Free 3 Actuated Green. G (s) 83.2 154!'0____3§.0 127.2 16.8 55.8 Effective Green. g (s) 84.2 154.0 40.0 128.2 17.8 57.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 1.00 0.26 0.83 0.12 .38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2780 1583 892 4233 397 635 v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.17 0.46 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.41 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.85 4.42 0.64 0-55 0.74 0.76 Uniform Delay. d1 29.4 0.0 50.6 4.0 65.9 42.0 Progression'Factor 0.85 1.00 0.73 0-11 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 7.3 5.2 Delay (s) �...... . 25-5 0.1 37.7 0.7 73.2 47.2 Level of Service C A D A E D Approach Delay (s) 19.9 8.0 57.1 Approach LOS B A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8-0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service Q Analysis Period (min) 15 c , Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 21 41: Pride Valley Drive & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 --*� *-- Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Flight 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) Direction. Lane EBL 110 0.92 120 212 212 4.1 2.2 91 1358 EBT WBT VNBR SBE_ SBR f t 516 147 516 Free Free 6.2 Stop 3.3 0% 0% 473 0% Volume Right _0 120 135 60 95 110 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 130 147 65 103 120 None: 120 516 147 516 147 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 78 87 473 900 Eta 1 EB 2 WB 1 WE 2 Sg 1 SB 2 Volume Total 120 130 147 65 103 120 Volume Left 120 0 0 0 103 0 Volume Right _0 00 65 0 120 cSH 1358 1700 1700 1700 473 900 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 21 11 Control Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 9.6 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay (s) 3.8 0.0 12.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 22 55: La Grande & Rahling Road II 5130/2006 --*� t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NSL NBA' NSR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 65 38 36 2 329 27 34 337 2 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.38 0.32 0.21 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.00 Control Delay 45.9 40.4 50.5 23.0 2.0 3.7 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.9 40.4 50.5 23.0 2.0 3.7 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 31 24 6 0 28 0 3 14 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 71 56 35 1 47 8 8 48 2 Internal Link Dist (ft) 366 1688 848 482 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 100 150 100 Base Capacity(vph) 451 603 440 564 1075 2831 1272 1070 2978 1333 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.00 Intersection Summary -- Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 23 55: La Grande & Rahlinu Road 5/30/2006 __. 1r -*- 4\ i Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Grp Cap (vph) 106 11r t 128 839 2632 I tt r 1243 vis Ratio Prot Ideal F(ow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 0.00 4.0 0.01 4.0 4.0 0.00 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane U' 1. Factor 1 .06 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay. d1 44.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00o.95 3.7 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 " 1.00 0.85 F(t Protec"ted ...... 0.95 1.00 1.6 0.95 1.00 0.3 0.0 0.95 1.00 1.06 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1794 47.3 1770 1653 3.5 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt'Perrrmitted 0.73 1.00 A 0.71 1.00 A 0.55 1.00 1.06 6.55' 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1367 1794 1331 1653 1022 3539 1583 1030 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 20 45 15 35 8 25 2 303 25 31 310 2 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) 22 49 16 389 27 �2 329 27 34 337 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 25 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 50 0 38 11 0 2 329 20 34 337 2 Turn Type Perm Perm ' c Critical Lane Group D.P+P Perm D.P+P Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 6 Actuated Green. G, (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 81.0 75.6 75.6 81-0 19.9 79.9 Effective Green. g (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 83.0 76.6 76.6 83.0 80.9 80. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.68 .0.08 0:08 0.81 0.74 0.74 0.81 O.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 5-0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Lane Grp Cap (vph) 106 139 103 128 839 2632 1177 876 2780 1243 vis Ratio Prot 0.03 0.01 0.o0 c0.09 c0.00 c0.10 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.36 0.37 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.00 Uniform Delay. d1 44.5 45.1 45.1 44.1 1.9 3.7 3.4 2.02.6 2.4 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 1.0 1.6 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 6.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 e'lay (s)� "" 45.5 46.7 47.3 44.4 1.9 3.8 3.5 2,0 2.7 2.4 Level of Service D D D D A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) _ 46.4 45.9 3.$ 2.6 Approach LOS D D A A -� Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103-0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.5% ICU Levei of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ' c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 24 57: Kanis Road & Rahling Road 5/30/2006 Lane Group ESL EBT WBT SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 402 755 157 109 We Ratio 0-38 0.27 0.60 0.64 0.35 Control Delay 6.2 4-2 13.3 60.2 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0-0 0-0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.2 4.2 13-3 60.2 11-0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 66 274 117 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 125 485 179 49 Internal Link Dist (ft) 272 414 1310 Turn Bay Length A Base Capacity (vph) 481 1480 1259 339 392 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cala Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.27 0-60 0.46 0.28 Intersection Summary - --- -- - Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 25 57: Kanis Road & Rahling Road 5/30/2006 4-- 4/ .,.* --r Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations t T+ Vi r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 '1.00 '1.06 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1825 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.27 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 508 1863 1825 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 135 370 590 105 144 100 _ 4 j Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 402 641 114 157 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 0 94 Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 402 751 0 157 15 Turn Type D.P+P Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 89.4 94.4 81.5 15.6 15.6 Effective Green. g (s) 91.4 95.4 82.5 16.6 16.6 Actuated 6 Ratio 0.76 0.80 0.69 0.14 6.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 481 1481 1255 245 219 vls Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.22 c0.41 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.27 0.60 0.54 0.07 Uniform Delay. d1 6.5 3.2 10.0 48.9 45.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 Incremental Delay. d2 0.4 0.5 2.1 5.6 0.1 Delay (s) 6.9 3.7 12.1 54.5 45.1 Level of Service A A B D D Approach Delay (s) 4.5 12.1 50.7 Approach LOS A B D Intersection Summary CM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B CM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization a 62.9% ICU Level of Service B ._ Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Queues Page 1 2: Rahling Road & Chenal Parkway 5/30/2006 'A � � t41 Lane_Group.; _ _ EBL EBT ESR _W8L WBT WBR NSL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 31u 174 759 425 547 168 1850 738 261 1168 212 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.81 0.47 1.13 0.67 1.07 0.59 1.14 0.70 1.08 0,65 0.20 Control Delay 75.9 83.9 132.3 65.4 99.1 79.3 88.9 6.6 141.8 30.0 ' 7.7 _r Queue Delay 0.0 111.111, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.9 83.9 45.1 132.3 65.4 99.1 79-3 88.9 6.6 141.8 30.0 7.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 158 162 119 -456 214 -479 79 1172 207 -292 450 55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 211 #230 198 #586277 #858 m66 m683 m103 #478 530 90 Internal Link Di; 770 _ 430 1387 1433 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 .Base Capacity(vph) 468 391 384 669 632 509 312 1617 1052 241 1805 1084 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0-67 0.79 0.45 1.13 0.67 1.07 0.54 1.14 0.70 1.08 0.65 0.20 lntersedtion Summary - --- - - - - - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. A Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 2: Rahlinu Road & Chenal Parkway 5/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT EBR w8L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M tt r tt r tt r tt 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.40 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 290 285 160 698 391 503 155 1702 679 240 1075 195 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) 315 310 174 759 425 547 168 1850 738 261 1168 212 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 30 0 0 10 0 0 20 0 0 22 Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 310 144 759 425 537 168 '1850 718 261 1168 190 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 18.1 15.6 27.4 29.0 26.5 46.5 11.8 69.4 98.4 20.0 77.6 95.7 Effective Green. g (s) 19.1 16.6 29.4 30.0 27.5 48.5 12.8 70.4 100.4 21.0 78.6 97.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.11 0 19 0.19 0.18 0.31 0.08 0.46 0.65 0.14 0.51 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 426 381 343 669 632 499 285 1618 1032 241 1806 1045 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.09 0.03 c0.22 0.12 c6.15 0.05 c0.52 0.14 c0.15 0.33 0,02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.19 0.32 0.10 v/c Ratio 6.74 Q.81 0.42 1.13 0.67 1.08 0.59 1.14 0.70 1.08 0.65 018 Uniform Delay. d1 65.1 67.2 54.8 62.0 59.0 52.8 68.1 41.8 17.1 66.5 27.6 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.52 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 6.6 12.5 0.8 78.1 2.8 62.1 0.3 65.3 0.2 81.8 1.8 0.1 Delay (s) 71.7 79.7 55.6 140.1 61.9 114.8 78.9 87.1 12.6 148.3 29.4 11.7 Level of Service E E E F E F E F B F C B Approach Delay (s) 71.3 112.9 66.6 46.0 Approach LOS E F E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 73.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 3 5: La Grande & Chenal Parkway *-- t 1I5/30/2006 i --I. LaneGrou ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NSL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 176 207 313 533 257 383 322 2270 225 155 1984 102 v/c Ratio 0.62 1.00 0.78 1.36 0.81 0.94 1.34 1.30 0.19 1.23 1.31 0.10 Control Delay 71.6 130.4 42.8 223.2 80.3 63.6 220.2 171.6 2.9 193.8 170.2 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.6 130.4 42.8 223.2 80.3 63.6 220.2 171.6 2.9 193.8 170.2 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 168 -214 174 -704 251 249 -418 1527 13 --195 1327 10 Queue Length 95th (€t) #302 #388 #259 #937 344 #381 m#616 #1650 m35 m#282n#1326 m17 Internal Link Dist (ft) 226 219 1598 659 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 284 206 403 391 387 408 241 1747 1192 126 1517 992 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.62 1.00 0.78 1.36 0.66 0.94 1.34 1.30 0.19 1.23 1.31 0.10 Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4 5: La Grande & Chenal Parkway * 15/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WOR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t e tt r I Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1904 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1-00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1-00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1563 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 VOILfine (vph) 162 190 288 490 236 352 296 2088 207 143 1825 94 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) 176 207 313 533 257 383 322 . 2270 ... 225 155 1984 102 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 24 0 0 23 0 0 20 Lane Group Flaw (vph) 176 207 301 533 257 359 322 2270 202 155 1984 82 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 23.7 16.0 36.0 33.0 25.3 35.3 20.0 75.0 108.0 10.0 65.0 88.7 Effective Green. g (s) 24.7 17.0 38.0 34.0 26.3 37.3 21.0 76.0 110.0 11.0 66.0 90.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.11 "0.25 0.22 0.17 0.24 0.14 0.49 0.71 0.07 0.43 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 206 391 391 318 383 241 1747 1172 "0.04 _ 126 1517 973 v/s Ratio Prot' 0.10 60.11 0.11 60.30 0.14 0.07 0.18 60.64 0.09 60.56 0. 01, v/s Ratio Perm 0-09 0.16 0.09 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.62 9.00 0.77 1.36 0.81 0.94 1.34 1.30 0.17 1.23 1.31 0.08 Uniform Delay. d1 60.3 68.5 53.9 60.0 61.4 57.2 66.5 39.0 7.2 71.5 44.0 13.7 Progression f=actor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0-99 0.69 0.97 0.69 0.26 Incremental Delay. d2 4.0 64.08.8 179.2 14.0 30.0 172.1 138.2 0.1 139.4 141.6 0.0 Delay (s) 64.3 132.5 .. 62.8 239.2 75.4 87.2 238.2 176.7 5.0 209.0 172.0 3,6 Level of Service E F E F E F F F A F F A Approach Delay (s) 83.9 153.7 170.0 166.9 Approach LOS F F F F 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 157.6 HCM Level of Service 1-27 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 117.3% ICU Level oftervice- 15 F 12.0 H Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 5 9: Rahling Road & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 t 1-- * I I t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR 89T Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 1228 426 384 897 340 191 187 9 vlc Ratio 0.04 0-80 0.35 0.63 0.41 0.46 0.41 0-40 0.07 Control Delay 38.8 24.8 1.3 38.7 11.7 34.5 9.4 8.9 37.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0-0 0.0 0-0 Total Delay 38.8 24.8 1.3 38.7 11.7 34.5 9.4 8-9 37.4 Queue Length 50th (f#) 3 262 1 91 83 76 2 0 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 449 21 187 328 168 71 67 20 Internil Link Dist (ft) 879 950 722 327 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 163 1884 1225 737 2396 735 470 469 299 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spilloack Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0-04 0.65 0.35 0.52 0.37 0.46 0.41 0.40 0.03 Intersection Summary - - Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1573 1012 555 1969 668 294 Page 6 9: Rahling Road & Kirk Road 0 vis R #io Prat 0.6 � c0.3 0.05 c0.1°1 0.25 c0.14 0.03 c . 00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 -0--- 4, 0.78 t 0.69 0.46 0-51 1I5/30/2006 t 0.12 0-13 Uniform Delay. d1 41.2 21.5 7.2 til 12.0 32-7 30.3 30.2 43.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *i ++ r 31.3 +� 44.9 Level of Service D It.r A D 41,Ideal C 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 - Lane-Ut 1. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 C 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.68 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.06 Analysis Period (min) 0.95 1.40 1.00 0.99 _ Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3537 3433 1511 1504 1732 Flt Permitted 0.95 -1.66- - 1.00 6.95 1.00 0-95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3537 3433 1511 1504 1732 Volume (vph) 6 1130 392 353 822 4 313 5 343 2 3 4 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} 7 1228 426 384 893 4 340 5 373 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 151 0 0 0 0 150 151 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1228 275 384 897 0 340 41 36 0 5 d Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Split Perm Split Protected Phases' 5 2 8 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green. 6(s) 3.5 39.4 56.1 13.7 49.6 16.7 16.7 16.7 1.1 Effective Green. g (s) 4.5 40.4 58-1 14.7 50.6 17.7 17.7 17.7 2.1 Actuated g/C `Ratio 0.05 0.44 0-64 0.16 0.56 0.19 0.19 0.19 0-02 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3-0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 88 1573 1012 555 1969 668 294 293 40 0 vis R #io Prat 0.6 � c0.3 0.05 c0.1°1 0.25 c0.14 0.03 c . 00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.78 0.27 0.69 0.46 0-51 0-14 0.12 0-13 Uniform Delay. d1 41.2 21.5 7.2 36.0 12.0 32-7 30.3 30.2 43.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1-00 1-00 1-00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 0.4 2.6 0.1 3.7 0.2 2.8 1.0 0.9 1.4 Delay (s) 41-6 24.1 '� 7.3 ' 39.7 12.1 35.5 31.3 31-1 44.9 Level of Service D C A D B D C C D Approach Delay (s) 19.8 20.4 33.2 44.9 Approach LOS B C C D Intersection Summary - - HCM Average Control Delay 22.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 _ c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 7 12: Wellington Village & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 t Movement WBL WBR NST NBR SBL SB Lane Configurations 299 Volume Left 22 00 Sign Control Stop 0 Free Volume Right Free Grade.:..__. 0% 136 0% 0 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 20 635 125 75 550 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 22 690 136 82 598 Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 29.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 10.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 0.0 Lane LOS D B Percent Blockage B Approach Delay (s) 21.9 Right turn flare (veh) 0.0 1.2 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal -(ft) 1191 pX. platoon unblocked vC.-conflicting volume 1152 690 826 viat stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf voles vCu. unblocked vol 1152 690 826 tC. single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2-2 p0 queue free % 87 94 90 cM capacity (veh/h) 172 387 800 Direction. Lane ## WB f WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB -1 S32 S84 Volume Total 22 22 690 136 82 299 299 Volume Left 22 00 0 82 0 0 Volume Right 0 227 _ 0v. 136 0 0 0 cSH 172 387 1700 1700 800 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.06 0.41 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.18 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 4 0 0 8 0 0 Control Delay (s) 29.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B B Approach Delay (s) 21.9 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1-1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 8 15: Arkansas Systems & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT E813WBL W8'1`'� ; , . OR NA NBT- -KB SBL: :SBT - :SSI Right Turn Channelized Yes Volume (vehlh) 150 230 75 80 170 331 40 400 170 320 280 80 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) 163 250 82 87 185 360 43 435 185 348 304 87 Approach Volume (vehlh) 495 272 663 739 Crossing Volume (vehfh) 739 641 761 315 High Capacity (vehlh) 770 833 757 1081 High vlc (vehlh) 0.64 0.33 0.88 0.68 Low Capacity (vehlh) 610 666 599 886 Low vkc (vehlh) f 0.81 0.41 _ 1.11 0.83 �Cr:te'f�ectf:Q�i'SB�ma � r" Maximum vlc High 0.88 Maximum vlc Low 1.11 intersection Capacity Utilization 93.6% ICU Level of Service F Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 9 21: Wellin ton Villa e & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SSL -SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 78 415 246 113 690 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.26 Control Delay 36.8 8.5 9.3 0.7 4.8 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.8 8.5 9.3 0.7 4.8 4.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 0 58 10 11 40 Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 30 131 19 36 95 Internal Link Dist (ft) 185 762 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 575 567 2269 1396 936 2619 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 00 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.27 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.26 Intersection Summary Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 10 21: Wellington Village & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 t Movement WBL VVBR NBT NBR S6L SBT Lane Configurations 143 0.92 155 0 155 72 0.92 78 66 12 382 0.92 415 0 415 226 0.92 246 52 194 104 0.92 113 0 113 635 0.92 690 0 690 Ideal Flow (vIphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted W 0.95 1.0© 1.00 f.0,0 0.51 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 948 3539 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor. PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 143 0.92 155 0 155 72 0.92 78 66 12 382 0.92 415 0 415 226 0.92 246 52 194 104 0.92 113 0 113 635 0.92 690 0 690 Turn Type Analysis Period (min) Perm c Critical Lane Group pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green. (s) 12.0 12.4 48.6 X0.6 X70 57.0 Effective Green. g (s) 12.0 12.0 48.6 60.6 57.0 57.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.63 01+6 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 247 2234 1328 749 2620 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.12 0.02 0.01 c0-19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.10 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.26 Uniform Delay. d1 30.1 27.6 5.9 2.0 2.9 3.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.37 349 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 2.6 0.1 0.2 4.0 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 32.7 27.7 8.3 6.9 3.0 3.5 Level of ServiceC C A A A A Approach Deiay (s) _ 31.0 7.8 3.4 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volumeto ratio 0.32 1=11,Capacity Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity ttilization 34.2°1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 11 23: Chenal Parkway & Wellington Hills 1I5/30/2006 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WE3L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 2087 68 76 1950 490 107 130 65 391 288 305 v/a Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.07 0.79 0.93 6.48 0.79 0.47 0.36 0.79 0.56 0.94 Control Delay 69.3 27.7 3.4 118.9 37.5 11.1 106.2 _ 73.4 19.5 77.0 69.1 80.8 Queue Delay 00 176.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Total Delay 69.3 204.0 3.4 118.9 40.5 11.1 106.2 73.4 19.5 77.0 69.1 82.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 1166 14 77 857 145 108 67 1 1'94 148 211 Queue Length 95th (ft) m76 m1088 m13 #177 985 227 #215 105 50 #284 200 #396 Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 664 314 404 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 150 200 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity(vph) 284 2197 992 96 2160 1045 138 322 203 496 529 331 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.52 1.40 0.07 0.79 0.96 0.47 0.78 0.40 0.32 0.79 0.54 0.93 Intersection Summary # 35th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles_ m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 12 23: Chenal Parkway & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NSL NBT NBR SI3.L SST SBR Lane Configurations M tt tt r tt r M ft 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 '0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1-00 0.95 1.00 0.97 6.96 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0-95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 135 1920 63 70 1794 451 98 120 60 360 265 281 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) 147 2087 68 76 1950 490 107 130 65 391 288 305 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 10 0 0 82 0 0 60 0 0 95 Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 2087 58 76 1950 408 107 130 5 391 288 210 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 11.7 94.6 94.6 7.3 90.2 90.2 10-8 10.9 10-9 21.2 21-3 21.3 Effective Green- g (s) 12.7 95.6 95.6 8.3 91.2 91.2 11.8 11.9 11.9 22.2 22.3 22-3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0,62' 0.62 0.05 0.59 0.59 0.08 0.08 0-08 0.14 0-14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 283 2197 983 95 2096 937 136 273 122 495 512 229 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.59 0.04 c0.55 0.06 0.04 c0.11 0.08 vis Ratio Perm 0.04 0.26 0.00 c0.13 We Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.06 011 ,80 a 0.93 0.44 0.79 0.48 0.04 0,79 0.56 0.92 Uniform Delay. d1 67.7 27.0 11.5 72.0 28.5 17.3 69.9 68.1 65.8 63.6 61.3 64.9 Progression Factor 0.99 0.96 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.10 Incremental Delay. d2 0.1 1.2 0.0 36.6 8.1 0.3 25.2 5.8 0.6 8.0 4.3 40.7 Delay (s) ¢ 67.2 27.1 6.1 ' 108.7 36.6 17.6 96.4 73.7 66.6 73.0 68.9 111.9 Level of Service E C A F D B F E E E E F Approach Delay (s) 29.0 35-1 80.2 83-9 Approach LOS C D F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 13 25: Kanis Rd. & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Lane Group WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SEl..2 SEL Lane Group Flow (vph) 672 120 234 16 23 710 v/c Ratio m 0.37 0.11 0.36 U3 0.05 0.29 Control Delay 9.2 2.6 44.6 5.4 4.0 4.3 Queue belay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.2 2.6 44.6 5.4 4.0 4.3 QueueLength 50th (ft) 59 0 116 0 3 67 Queue Length 95th (ft) 169 25 m140 m2 m6 m96 Internal Link`bist (f#) 749 287 421 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1804 1067 1025 619 508 2424 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 4 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.37 0.11 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.29 Intersection Summary _ m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 14 25: Kanis Rd. & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 MnvPmpnt WBR W6R2 SBL SBR SEL2 SEL Lane Configurations 1698964 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 651 454 470 2425 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 bV , Frt 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.05 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 2787 1583 3433 1583 1770 3433 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.32 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 2787 1583 3433 1583 589 3433 Volume (vph) 618 110 215 15 21 653 _ Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 672 120 234 16 23 710 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 47 0 12 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 672 73 234 4 23 710 Turn Type Perm pm+ov pm+pt Protected -Phases 6 4 5 5 2 Permitted Phases6 4 2 Actuated Green. G (s) 45.9 45.9 13.6 16.1 53.4 53.4 Effective Green. g (s) 46.9 46.9 14.6 18.1 54.4 54.4 Actuated g/0"Ratio 0.61 ""'0.61 0.61 0.19 0.24 0.71 0,71 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1698964 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 651 454 470 2425 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 ....... ... .. c0,07 0.b 0.00 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.050.00 0.03 v/c Ratio W 0.40 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.29 Uniform Delay. d1 7.8 6.2 27.1 22.6 3.8 4.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.65 0.97 0.86 0.86 Incremental Delay. d2 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0,2 Delay (s) 8.4 6.3 45.0 21.9 3.3 3,$ Level of Service A A D C A A Approach Delay (s) 8.1 43.5 3.8 Approach LOS A D A Intersection Summary -- - I HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization ._ ' 31,6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane\Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues 28: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Rd. Page 15 --* 4--- t 1wt 1I5/30/2006 --,, Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT 11VBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 2239 787 204 2262 5 379 380 60 5 4 v/c Ratio 0.23 1.07 0.56 1.01 0.98 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.16 0.07 0.06 Control Delay 60.7 59.2 3.4 104.7 27.9 11.6 122.9 122.8 16.1 73.8 58.2 Queue Delay 0.0 223.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay. 60.7 282.9 3.4 104.7 30.1 11.6 122.9 122.8 15.1 73.8 58.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 1289 104 -107 424 1 -449 -450 14 5 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) m17 #1423 m198 m#131 #1411 m1 #675 #674 39 21 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 804 757 664 161 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 100 Base'Capacity (vph) 69 2091 1396 201 2298 1029 349 350 369 69 69 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 668 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 1.57 0.56 1.01 1.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 11.17 0.07 0.06 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Chenal Parkwax & Kanis Rd. 15 2060 724 188 2081 Page 16 696 2 55 5 2 4 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0-92 I 4 0.92 15/30/2006 t 4, 0.92 0.92 _10.-*- 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 2239 787 204 2262 . 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NSI. NST NSR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 40 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 223.9 673 204 2262 4 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 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 4.95 7.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.851.00 88.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 ri_ 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1681 1686 1583 1770 1723 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 (.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1681 1686 1583 1770 1723 Volume (vph) 15 2060 724 188 2081 5 696 2 55 5 2 4 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) 16 2239 787 204 2262 . 5 757 2 60 5 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 114 0 0 1 0 0 40 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 223.9 673 204 2262 4 379 380 20 5 2 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Split Perm Split Profected Phases 5 2 8 1 6 8 8 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green. G (s) 2.0 87.0 2 118.0 11.0 96.0 6 96.0 31":0 31.0 8 31.0 5.0 5.0� Effective Green. g (s) 3.0 88.0 120.0 12.0 97.0 97.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.57 0.78 0.08 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.21 rv0.21 0.04 0.04. Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane GrpCap(vph) 34 2022 1275 268 2229 997 349 350 329 69 67 v/s Ratio Prot ' 0.01 c0.63 0.11 c6.06 c0.64 c0.23 0.23 c0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.320.00 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.47 1.11 0.53 0.76 1.01 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.06 6.07 0.03.. Uniform Delay. dl 74.7 33.0 6.4 69.6 28.5 10.6 61.0 61.0 48.9 71.3 71.2 Progression Factor 0.79 0.66 2.15 0.83 0.67 1.23 0.90 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 4.9 52.4 0.2 5.6 16.5 0.0 72.4 72.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 63.7 74.2 13.9 63.1 35.5 13.0 127.2 127.1 47.2 71.8 71.4 Level of Service E E B E D B F F D E E Approach Delay (s) 58.5 37.7 121.3 71.6 Approach LOS E D F E IRWROtion Summary HCM Average Control Delay 58.5 HCM Level of Service E Hcm Valur`°ne to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Ut fization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 17 31: Chenal Parkway & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 } -4-- t II i --I, Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL W.BT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 2629 154 196 2802 312 109 114 366 120 183 We Ratio 0.81 0.81 0.13 0.80 0.92 0.82 0.53 0.46 0.86 0.52 0.68 Control Delay 78.8 14.7 0.1 64.2 21.6 85.0 74.8 28.9 86.2 72.1 48.7 Queue Delay 0.8' 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 Total Delay78.8 17.0 0.1 64.2 21.6 85.0 74.8 28.9 86.2 72.1 48.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 684 0 101 802 160 105 32 189 115 97 Queue Length95th (ft) m99 579 m0 m102 m712 #233 174 98 #273 185 188 Internal Link hist (ft) 309 464 678 1870 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 201 3005 1185 245 3032 379 206 246 424 230 268' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.95 0.13 0.80 0.92 0.82 0.53 0.46 0.86 0.52 0.68 I ntersection. Sura ma ry # 95th percentile votume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 18 31: Chenal Parkway & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 __. 'r *- t Movement EBL EBT EBR 1NBL WBT WBR NSL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBO Lane Configurations 201 3005 1151 245 3021 379 206 175 424 230 195 v/s Ratio Prot 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 0.03 4.0 4.0 4.0 . 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.1 Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.86 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 63.2 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.06 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5685 1583 3433 5003 Delay (s) 3433 1863 _ 1583 3433 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 E 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5003 17.1 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 150 2419 142 180 2300 278 287 100 105 337 110 168 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) 163 2629 154 196 2500 302 312 109 114 366 120 183 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 37 0 10 0 0 0 71 0 0 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 2629 117 196 2792 0 312 109 43 366 120 110 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Split Perm Split Perm Protected Phases 5 2 8 9 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 8.0 90.0 106.0 10.0 _ 92.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green. g (s) 9.0 91.0 108.0 11.0 93.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.59 0.70 0.07 0.60 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0-12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 201 3005 1151 245 3021 379 206 175 424 230 195 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.52 0.01 c0.06 c0.56 c0.09 0.06 c0.11 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm0.06 0.03 0.07 vlc Ratio 0.81 0.87 0.16 0.80 0.92 0.82 0.53 0.24 0.86 0.52 0.57 Uniform Delay. dl 71.7 26.7 7.4 70.4 27.3 67.0 64.7 62.6 66.2 63.2 63.6 Progression Factor 0.90 0.48 0.00 0.88 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 10.4 1.8 0.1 1.8 0.6 18.0 9.4 3.3 20.2 8.2 11.3 Delay (s) 75.0 14.5 0.1 63.4 21.5 85.1 74.1 65.9 86.4 71.5 75.0 Level of Service E B A E C F E E F E E Approach Delay (s) 17.1 24.2 78.8 80.6 Approach LOS B C E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 e„ Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 19 33: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Road 5/30/2006 *% I Lane Group SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER - Lane Group Flow (vph) 2592 678 577 2462 327 504 vlc Ratio 0.90 0.43 0.70 0.58 0.83 0.83 Control Delay 22.3 0.1 44.8 0.7 84.9 56.5 Queue Delay 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.8 0.1 44.8 0.9 84.9 56.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 491 0 293 37 168 455 Queue Length 95th (ft) m380 m0 m321 35 #240 #632 Internal Link Dist (ft) 308 410 266 Turn Bay Length {ft} 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 2885 1583 825 4238 401 604 _ Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 729 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 71 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0-92 0.43 0.70 0.70 0.82 0.83 thteiti ' inn; Surrill # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 20 33: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Road 5/30/2006 c. Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER Lane Configurations ViV Ideal Flow (vph pl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4-0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 _ Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1583 3433 5085 3433 1583 FIt'Permitted 1.00 1.60 0.95 1.00 ... °0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 3433 5085 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 2385 624 531 2265 301 464 _ Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2592 678 577 2462 '327 504 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2592 678 577 2462 327 503 Turn Type Free Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 1 Permitted Phases Free 3 Actuated Green. G (s) 86.4 154.0 36.0 127.4 16.6 52.5 Effective Green. g (s) 87.4 154.0 37.0 128.4 17.6 54.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 1.00 0.24 0.83 0.11 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2886 1583 825 4240 392 602 _ Ws Ratio Prot c0.5i 0.17 0.48 0.10 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.43 0.12 vie Ratio— 0.90 0.43 0.70 0.58 0.83 0.84 Uniform Delay. d1 29.4 0.0 53.4 4.1 66.8 45.6 Progression Factor 0.7`3 1.00 0.79 0.11 1.00 1.00 _ Incremental Delay. d2 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.3 14.1 9.7 Delay (s) 21.9 0.1 43.4 0.7 80.9 5' Level of Service C A D A F E Approach Delay (s) '17.4 8.8 65.4 Approach LOS B A E Intersection Summary - - - - - HCM Average Control Delay 19.3 HCM Level of Service B FfCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length s Y_..... 9 �) 154.0 Sum of lost times 8.0 O 'Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.5% .au�... ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c. Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 21 41: Pride Valley Drive & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations f + r r Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 120 120 135 65 100 125 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0-92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 130 130 147 71 109 136 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 538 147 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 217 538 147 tC. single (s) 4.1 6-4 6.2 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) , 2.2 3.5 3-3 p0 queue free % 90 76 85 cM capacity (vehlh) 1352 455 900 Direction. LanE # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SIB SB 2 Volume Total 130 130 147 71 109 136 Volume Left 130 0 0 0 109 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 71 0 136 cSH 1352 1700 1700 1700 455 900 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.24 0-15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 23 13 Control Delay (s) 7.9 0-0 0.0 0-0 15.4 9.7 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (sj 4.0 0.0 12.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 22 55: La Grande & Rahling Road 5/30/2006 -11 t II t --Ip. Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SSR Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 115 49 66 5 362 49 45 359 5 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.58 0.40 0.31 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.00 Control Delay 54.4 54.5 58.5 22.5 0.6 1.8 0.1 ,0.0 2.4 3.1 2.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 54.4 54.5 58.5 22.5 0.6 1.8 0.1 2.4 3.1 2.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 73 36 12 0 14 0 5 21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 130 74 54 m1 14 m1 13 60 4 Internal Lirik"Nit"(ft) 366 1688 848 482 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 100 150 100 Base Capacity(vph) 432 592 397 571 1058 2755 1243 1044 2878 1288 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbaek Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.09 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.00 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 23 55: La Grande & Rahling Road 5/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL VVBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR. Lane Configurations 0.01 0.00 c0.10 c0.0 co -10 ft r 0.03 ft 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 50.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanelltil.�Pactor 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.96 3.3 1.00 0.89 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Pit Protected 0.95 1.00 49.4 0.95 1.00 0.3 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1783 A 1770 1655 A 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.50 1.Ofl Approach LOS 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.64 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1319 1783 922 1655 1001 3539 1583 998 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 38 75 30 45 16 45 5 333 45 41 330 5 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) 41 82 33 49 17 49 5 362 49 45 359 6 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 44 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 99 0 49 22 0 5 362 37 45 359 4 Turn Type Perm Perm D.P+P Perm D.P+P Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 2 6 Actuated Green. G (s) _ 11.2 "11.2 f-" 11.2 11.2 93.8 88.4 88.4 93.8 92.6 92.6 Effective Green. g (s) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 95.8 89.4 89.4 95.8 93.6 93.6 Actuated g/C Ra'iio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.7 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 &0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 134181 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 94 168 813 2637 1179 838 2760 1235 v/s Rafio�'Prot c0.06 0.01 0.00 c0.10 c0.0 co -10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.04 '0.13 0.00 v/c Rafio'_ 0.31 0:55 0.52 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.o3 0.05 - 0.00 Uniform Delay. d1 50.0 51.3 51.1 49.1 2.5 4.3 4.0 2.6 3.2 2.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.42 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 1.3 3.3 5.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 v Delay (5) - 5`1.3 54.8 56.3 49.4 0.6 1.9 0.3 2.6 3.3 2.9 Level of Service D D E D A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 53.7 52.3 1.7 3.2 Approach LOS D D A A HCM Average Control Delay 15.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization _ 31.7°/0 �� ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 24 57: Kanis Road & Rahling Road 5/30/2006 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 424 804 183 196 v/c Ratio 6.63'0, 2b 0:66 0.69 0.49 Control Delay 9.1 4.6 16.1 53.9 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.1 4.6 16.1 53.9 6.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 78 334 119 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 130 554 163 22 Internal Link dist (ft) 272 4f4 1310 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 436 1460 1220 325 450 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 - Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v -/c Rati❑ 0.46 0.29 0.66 0.56 0.44 Intersection Sumtnary Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 25 57: Kanis Road & Rahlinu Road 5/30/2006 c ,Critical -Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network __,, 4---\D.4/ Movement ESL EBT WBT WBR SSL SBR Lane Configurations t 1-1 !deal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ufil. Factor 1.0011 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 1863 1822 1770 1583 At Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 437 1863 1822 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 185 390 620 120 168 180 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (Vipfi) 201 424 674 130 183 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 5 0 0 167 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 424 799 0 183 29 Turn Type D.P+P Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 88.1 93.1 79.1 16.9 16.9 Effective Green. g (s) 90.1 94.1 80.1 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.78 0-67 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5-0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 439 1461 1216 264 236 Ws Raf o orot c0.04 0.23 c0.44 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.02 v/c Ratio 0-46 0.29 0-66 0.69 0-12 Uniform Delay. d1 8.9 3.6 11.8 48.4 44.3 Progression Factor 11.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.39 Incremental Delay. d2 0.8 0-5 2.8 7.6 0.2 Delay 4.1 14.6 48.3 17.7 ' Level of Service A A B D B Approach Delay (s) 5.9 14.6 32.4 Approach LOS A B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15-3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated CycleLength(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection CapacityUtilizafion 69.5% ICU_Level of Service IF C Analysis Period (min) 15 c ,Critical -Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network 0 ■ N■y r� VA PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Queues Pagel 2: Rahlinu Road & Chenal Parkway ---* -- t 1I5/30/2006 i -A --1, Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 315 185 460 430 547 179 1921 782 272 1272 212 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.82 0.49 0.94 0.85 1.20 0.62 1.68 0.75 1.08 0.64 0.19 Control Delay 87.1 84.7 44.4 92.6 81.0 145.3 79.0 61.0 7.9 138.0 25.4 6.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Total Delay 87.1 84.7 44.4 92.6 81.0 145.3 79.0 61.0 7.9 138.0 25.4 6.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 162 165 124 239 225 --597 85 -1151 288 -303' 457 54 Queue Length 95th (ft) #237 #235 206 #346 #310 #899 m70 m693 m121 #493 533 87 Internal Link Dist (ft) 770 430 1387 1433 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 379 391 390 490 506 457 312 1777 1042 253 1988 1117 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbaek Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 ❑ 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.81 0.47 0.94 0.85 1.20 0.57 1.08 0.75 1.08 0.64 0.19 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Rahling Road & Chenal Parkway 290 290 170 423 396 Page 2 165 1767 719 250 1170 .0- Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 t 0.92 0.92 1I5/30/2006 t -V 0.92 0.92 --, 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 315 315 185 460 430 547 M-6ement EN -L EBT ESR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR- BRLane LaneConfigurations 0 ft r 0 tt r 315 tt r 460 tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 1.00 4.0 4.0 110 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected '0.95 1.00 ''1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (Perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 290 290 170 423 396 503 165 1767 719 250 1170 195 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) 315 315 185 460 430 547 179 1921 782 272 1272 212 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 35 0 0 6 0 0 21 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 315 150 460 430 541 179 1921 761 272 1272 197 Turn Type Prot 1.00 pm+ov Prot 1.00 pm+ov Prot 0.57 pm+ov Prot 1.00 pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 82.4 80.3 4 91.2 77.8 8 78.5 59.9 2 144.0 24.8 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 1'5.8 15.7 27.7 21.0 20.9 41.9 12.0 76.3 97.3 21.0 85.3 101.1 Effective Green. g (s) 16.8 16.7 29.7 22.0 21.9 43.9 13.0 77.3 99.3 22.0 86.3 103.1 Actuated ted Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.08 0.50 0.64 0.14 0.56 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 375 384 346 490 503 451 290 1776 1021 253 1983 1101 vis Ratio Prot 0.09 0.09 0.04 c0.13 0.12 c0.17 0.05 c0.54 0.11 0.15 0.36 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.17 0.37 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.82 0.43 0.94 0.85 1.20 0.62 1.08 0.75 1.08 0.64 0.18 Uniform Delay. dl 67.3 67.2 54.8 65.3 64.5 55.1 68.1 38.4 18.7 66.0 23.2 9.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.57 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 15.2 13.1 0.9 25.8 13.3 109.7 0.4 37.9 0.3 78.0 1.6 0.1 Delay (s) 82.4 80.3 55.5 91.2 77.8 164.8 78.5 59.9 12.5 144.0 24.8 9.6 Level of Service F F E F E F E E B F C A Approach Delay (s) 75.5 115.2 48.2 41.5 Approach LOS E F D D fintersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 63.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) '12.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 3 5: La Grande & Chenal Parkway 1I5/30/2006 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR IBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 176 207 324 565 262 415 322 2270 258 155 2060 102 vIc Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.83 1.41 0.81 1.00 1.40 1.32 0.22 1.23 1.36 0.10 Control Delay 70.4 130.4 48.8 239.3 79.9 77.9 245.7 180.1 4.0 199.5 196.0 2.9 Ovew Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 Total Delay 70.4 130.4 48.8 239.3 79.9 77.9 245.7 180.1 4.0 199.5 196.0 2.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 167 -214 184 -758 256 275 -432 1544 31 -194 -1426 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) #302 #388 #270 #996 347 #441 m#618 #1673 m67 m#324 #1549 m27 Internal Link Dist (ft) 226 219 1598 659 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 290 206 391 402 399 413 230 1724 1192 126 1517 997 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v1c Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.83 1.41 0.66 1.00 1.40 1.32 0.22 1.23 1.36 0.10 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity- queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Vvlume,far g5t4.percentile qumse is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4 5: La Grande & Chenal Parkway t o.t 1I5/30/2006 ---►-- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t ++ r '� tt 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.D0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted _ 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 ,,,,1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 162 190 298 620 241 382 296 2088 237 143 1895 94 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) 176 207 324 565 262 416 322 2270 258 165 2666 102 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 0 25 0 0 23 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 176 207 313 565 262 390 322 2270 235 155 2060 83 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 24.2 16.0 35.0 34.0 25.8 35.8 19,0 74.0 108.0 10.0 65.0 89.2 Effective Green. g (s) 25.2 17.0 37.0 35.0 26.8 37.8 20.0 75.0 110.0 11.0 66.0 91.2 Actuated g%C Ratio 0.16 0.11 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.13 6.49 0.71 0.07 0.43 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3:0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 290 206 380 402 324 389 230 1724 1172 126 1517 979 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.11 0.11 c0.32 0.14 0.07 0.18 c0.64 0.05 0.09 c0.58 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.17 0.10 0.04 vlc Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.82 1.41 0.81 1.00 1.40 1.32 0.20 1.23 1.36 0.08 Uniform Delay. d1 59.8 68.5 55.4 59.5 61.1 58.1 67.0 39.5 7.3 71.5 44.0 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.03 0.88 0.92 0.82 0.37 Incremental Delay. d2 3.6 64.0 13.5 196.8 13.8 46.3 198.8 145.7 0.1 147.6 164.7 0.0 Delay (s) 63.4 132.5 69.0 256.3 74.9 104.4 267.0 186.4 6.5 213.1 200.9 5.0 Level of Service E F E F E F F F A F F A Approach Delay (s) 86.2 167.3 179.2 193.1 Approach LOS F F F F - Intersection Summary } HCM Average Control Delay 172.4 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (mite) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 5 9: Rahling Road & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 --a. t II t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR 1N8L WBT NBL NBT NBR S Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 1261 437 460 1272 5 427 2 8 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.84 0.34 0.85 0.61 0.01 0.87 0.00 0.07 Control Delay 52.5 33.0 1.1 57.4 14.7 28.6 55.0 20.5 38.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.5 33.0 1.1 57.4 14.7 28.6 55.0 20.5 38.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 357 0 146 210 1 267 0 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 #586 18 #266 447 6 #525 6 19 Internal Link Dist (ft) 879 950 722 327 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 82 1504 1277 544 2078 952 491 419 245 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.84 0.34 0.85 0.61 0.01 0.87 0.00 0.03 intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. , Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Page 6 9: Rahling Road & Kirk Road Analysis Period (min) 15 �`` t 1I5/30/2006 t --W-- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpi 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.0.95 1.00 097 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1-00 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected " 0-95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1-00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flaw (prot) 1770 35391583 3433 3390 3433 1770 1504 1705 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 _ r 1.00 �...,,, 0:.,. 95 1-00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3390 3433 1770 1504 1705 Volume (vph) 6 1160 402 423 842 328 5 393 2 3 1 4 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) 7 1261 437 _ 460. 915 357 5 427 2 3 1 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 137 0 27 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 1261 300 460 1245 0 5 427 1 0 4 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Split Perm Split Protected Phases 5 2 8 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green. G (s) 0.7 45.9 73.0 15.0 60.2 27.1 27.1 27.1 1-3 Effective Green. g (s) 1.7 46.9 75.0 16.0 61.2 281 28.1 28.1 2-3 Actuafed g/C Ratio 0.02 0.43 0.69 0-15 0.56 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.02 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5-0 5-0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 28 1519 1086 503 1898 883 455 387 36 v/s Ratio Prot ' 0.00 c0-36 0.07 c0.13 0-37 0-00 c0.24 c0.00 T,• v/s Ratio Perm0.12 0.00 v%Ratio 0.25 0.83 0.28 0.91 0.66 0.01 "0.94 0.00 0.11 Uniform Delay. d1 53.2 27.7 6.6 46.0 16.7 30.2 39.8 30.2 52.5 Progression Factor 1,001.00 1.00 _. 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 _ 1.00 _ . 1.00 . 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 4.7 4.0 0.1 21.1 0.8 0.0 29.3 0.0 1.4 Delay (s) 1,,.11 1 57.8 31.7 6.8 67-1 17.6 30.2 69.1 30.2 53.9 Level of Service E C A E B C E C D Approach Delay (s) 25-4 30.7 68.4 53.9 Approach LOS C C E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersecfion Capacity Utilization 74.910 ICU Level of Service f D. Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 7 12: Wellington Village & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 * I / I t Movement VVRL WBR NBT NBR SBL SS Lane Configurations ' r t �' Vi ++ _ Sign Control Stop Free Free'11 Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 25 20 655 140 75 630 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 127 22 712 152 82 685 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream s 11 ignal (ft) 1191 pX. platoon unblocked VC. conflicting volume 1217 712 864 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 1217 712 864 fC. single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 94 89 cM capacity (veh/h) 155 375 774 Direction. Lame # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 S8 1 SB 2 SE3 3 Volume Total 27 22 712 152 82 342 342 Volume Left 27 0 0 0 82 0 0 Volume Right 0 22 0 152 0 0 R cSH 155 375 1700 1700 774 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.06 0.42 0.09 0.11 0.20 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 5 0 0 9 0 0 Control Delay (s) 33.9 15.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D C B Approach Delay (s) 25.2 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Su Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 8 15: Arkansas Systems & Kirk Road ■--- * 15/30/2006 i I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT S8 Right Turn Channelized Yes Volume (vehlh) 150 250 100 105 210 361 50 460 190 350 330 80 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) 163 272 109 114 228 392 54 500 207 380 359 87 Approach Volume (vehlh) 543 342 761 826 Crossing Volum (vehlh) 853 717 815 397 High Capacity (vehlh) 702 784 724 1014 High vlc (vehlh) 0.77 0.44 1-05 0.82 Low Capacity (vehlh) 551 622 570 826 Low vlc (vehlh) 0.99 0.55 1.33 1-00 Intersection Summary Maximum vlc High 7.05 Maximum vlc Low 1.33 Intersection Capacity utilization 105.5% ICU Level of Service G Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 9 21: Wellington Village & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 t Lane_Group VVBL WBR NBT NBR aL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 84 535 251 118 734 vlc Ratio '-'b ' 58 6.20 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.28 Control Delay 3.78.1 9.8 0.6 5.5 4.4 QueueWDelay 0.0 .. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.7 8.1 9.8 0.6 5.5 4.4 Queue°Length 50th (ft) 76 0 80 8 12 44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 31 m166 m13 39 106 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1.85 762 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 200 Base Capacity (vpF} 552 551 2246 1393 808 2595 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c katio ' 0.30 0.15 0.24 0.18 0.15 0.28 Intersection Summa m Volume for 85th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 10 21: Wellington Village & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Movement WBL WBR NBT NPR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Vi r tt ? tt "Ideal Flow (vphof) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.04.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 4.0 Lane 'Uffl.'Pacbor 1.00 . 1 1 .00 - 1 0 1 9 11 5 i.60, 1.00 0 .95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 im Flt Protected 0.195 1.00 1 0 1'.00 1.06 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1_770 3536 Flt Permitted 0.95 1'.00 i. 6 1.00 0.44 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 822 3539 Volume (vph) 15:3 77 492 231 109 675 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.'Flow (vph) 166 84 535 251 11'8 734 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 70 0 53 00 -M4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 14 535 198 1"18 Turn Type Perm pm+ov '8 pm+pt I 'rotected'Ohases 6"' 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green. G,'(s)_ 12.5' 12.5 48.1 606 56.5 56. 1 6 Effective Green. g (s) 12.5 12.5 48.1 60.6 56.5 56.5 Actuated g!C 'Ratio 6.16 0.16 "b 1 11 6 11 2 619 0.73" 6'."73 Clearance Time (s) 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 I Lane Grp Cap (vph) 287 257 2211 1328 657 2597 v1s Ratio Prot 00.09 0.15 0,02 0.01 00.21 Q -7 2 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.10 0A2 v/c Ratio" 0.58 0.05 0.24 0.15 0,18 0.28 Uniform Delay. dl 29.8 27.2 6.4 2.0 3.6 3.4 roqression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.34 2.63 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 Delay 32.6 27.3 8.8 5.8 3.7 3.7 21 Level of Service C C A A A A Approach Delay (s) 30.9 7,6 3.7 Approach LOS C A A HCM Average Control Delay 8.9 HCM Level of Service A libm Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8-0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38,1% ICU Level of Service -A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 11 23: Chenal Parkway & Wellington Hills *-- 4- t 1I5/30/2006 i --1. Lane Group EBI. EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBl_ NBT NSR SBL SBT -SBR- S8RLane LaneGroup Flow (vph) 163 2141 71 76 2059 577 109 163 65 413 310 316 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.98 0-07 0.95 0-96 0.55 0.91 0.56 0-34 0.79 0.53 0.93 Control Delay 75.6 30.7 3.4 158.2 40.4 12-2 131.1 75.2 18.9 76-1 65.1 79.5 Queue Delay 0.0 194.7 0.0 0.0 2-0 0-0 100-4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Total Delay 75.6 225.5 3.4 158.2 42.4 12.2 231.5 75.2 18.9 76.1 65.1 80.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 1200 14 78 972 194 111 84 1 214 155 237 Queue Length 95th (ft) m81 m1074 m13 #189 #1143 295 #233 127 51 9293 210 #422 Internal Link Dist (ft) 757 664 314 404 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 150 200 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity(vph) 189 2183 987 80 2160 1054 120 322 203 520 597 345 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 46 0 31 0 0 0 0 3 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0-86 1.45 0.07 11.95 0.97 0.55 1.22 0.51 0.32 0.79 0-52 0-92 intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity- queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 12 23: Chenal Parkway & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 --,, I 1 t 41 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT 1N3R NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT -660 Lane Configurations 28.6 tT r 0.97 Tt r 2.8 tt r 1) ft 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 4.0 4. Lane Ufi. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.~00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Perrnitted' 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 150 1970 65 70 1894 531 100 150 60 380 285 291 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) 163 2141 71 16 2059 577 109 163 65 413 310 316 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 10 0 0 88 0 0 60 0 0 78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 2141 61 76 2059 489 109 163 5 413 310 238 Turn TypeP rot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 7.5 94.0 94.0 '6.0 92.5 92.5 9.4 11.7 11.7 22.3 24.6 24.6 Effective Green. g (s) 8.5 95.0 95.0 7.0 93.5 93.5 10.4 12.7 12.7 23.3 25.6 25.6 Actuated'g/C Ratio 0.06 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 2183 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.60 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.86 0.98 Uniform Delay. dl 72.2 28.6 Progression Factor 0.99 0.97 Incremental Delay. d2 3.9 2.8 Delay (s) 75.6 30.6 Level of Service E C Approach Delay (s) 32.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Ceoapacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 977 80 2149 0.04 c0.58 0.04 0.06 0.95 11.8 73.3 0.44 1.00 0.0 82.7 5.2 156.0 A F 45.5 0.95 154.0 86.7% 15 0.96 28.4 1.00 11.1 39.5 38.1 D 961 120 292 131 519 588 263 0.06 0.05 c0.12 0.09 0.31 0.00 c0.15 0.51 0.91 0.56 0.04 0.80 0.53 0.91 17.2 71.3 68.0 65.0 63.1 58.7 63.0 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1 02 1 05 1.07 0.4 54.0 7.5 0.6 8.0 3.3 35.2 11.6 125.9 75.2 65.6 72.4 64.9 102.8 B F E E E E F 89.7 79.4 F E HCM Level of Service D Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 1W Level of Service E Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 13 25: Kanis Rd. & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 Vt— 4L, \P. *J Lane Group WBR WBR2 SBL SBR SEL2 SEL Lane Group Flow (vph) 726 152 255 16 23 759 vlc Ratio 0.46 0.16 0.34 0.03 0.05 0.33 Control Delay 13.2 2.5 25.5 8.9 5.4 6.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.2 2.5 25.5 8.9 5.4 6.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 0 38 0 5 119 Queue Length 95th (ft) 171 26 m124 m13 m5 m84 Internal Link Dist (ft) 749 287 421 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 1578 962 981 647 502 2318 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.16 0.26 0.02 0.05 0.33 Ynteriiori Sum'malr m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 14 25: Kanis Rd. & Wellington Hills 5/30/2006 '0L__ 1J `-+ Movement WBR VVBR2 SBL SBR 5EL2 SE.. - Lane Configurations Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ideal Flow (vpfap�)1900 Adj. Flow (vph) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frt 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.001.00 pm+pt f It Protected_ w 1.00 1.06 0.95 1.00--' 0.95 _ 6" '6 Said. Flow (prot) 2787 1583 3433 1583 1770 3433 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.30 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm] 2787 1583 3433 1583 567 3433 Volume (vph) 668 140 235 15 21 698 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 726 152 " 255 16 23 759 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 70 0 11 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 726 82 255 5 23 759 Turn Type Perm pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 6 4 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 4 2 Actuated Green. G (s) 40.6 40.6 16.0 21.4 51.0 51.0 Effective Green. g (s) 41.6 41.6 17.0 23.4 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/G Ratio 0.54 0.54 6.22 6.30 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1506 855 758 563 483 2318 WS Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.01 0.00 0.00 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.00 0.03 v/c IRatio 0.48 0.10 11-10.34__01.011 0.05 0.33 UniformDelay. d1 11.0 8.6 25.3 18.7 6.7 5.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.61 1A7 1.11 Incremental Delay. d2 1,1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Delay (s) 12.1 8.8 25.0 30.2 7.2 6.1 Level of Service B A C C A A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 25.3 6.1 Approach LOS B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to, Cappq ty ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.4°I° ICU Level of Service M � ... Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 15 28: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Rd. ---* ■-- t II5/30/2006 i --,, Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR S8L SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 2326 836 204 2387 5 401 403 60 5 4 We Ratio 0.23 1.11 0.60 1.15 1.05 0.00 1.11 1.12 0.15 0.07 0.06 Control Delay 61.3 76.1 3.6 143.6 49.1 12.4 127.0 127.7 17.1 73.8 58.2 Queue Delay 0.0 254.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.3 330.3 3.6 143.6 53.9 12.4 127.0 127.7 17.1 73-8 58.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 --1387 116 -122 -581 1 -486 -488 17 5 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) m17 #1517 m216 m#139n#1553 m2 #713 #721 40 21 16 Internal Link Dist (ft) 804 757 664 161 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 100 Base Capacity (vph) 69 2091 1403 178 2275 1018 360 361 378 69 69 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 707 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.23 1.68 0.60 1.15 1.06 0.00 1.11 1.12 0.16 0.07 0.06 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 16 28: Chenal Parkway & Kanis Rd. 1I5/30/2006 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r 4 r 13 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 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 6.95 1.00 6.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0-95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 "1.00 1.00 "',b`9'6 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.06 0.95- 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1681 1686 1583 1770 1723 Flt Permitted 6.95 1:`b0 1.00 .'06 1.00 1-00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1681 1686 1583 1770 1723 Volume (vph) 15 2140 769 188 2196 5 738 2 55 5 2 2 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) 16 2326 836 204 2387 5- 802_ 2 _.n_ 60 5 2 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 110 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 2326 726 204 2387 4 401 403 22 5 2 -0 Turn Type Prot pm+oV Prot Perm Split Perm Split Protected Phases 5 2 8 1 6 8 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Actuated Green. G (s) 2.0 87.0 119.0 10.0 95.0 95.0 32.0 32.0 32.0- 5.0 5.0 '_nM Effective Green. g (s) 3.0 88.0 121.0 11.0 96.0 96.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 6.0 6.0 Actuated1-g/C Ratio 0-02 0.676.7 0.07 0.ti2 6.62 0.21 0.21 0.2'f 0.04 0.04. Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Fxtension (sy 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 34 2022 1285 245 2206 987 360 361 339 69 67 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.66 0.12 c0.06 c0.67 0.24 c0.24 c0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.34 0.00 0.01 v!c Ratio 0.47 1.15 0.55 0.83 1.08 0.00 1.11 1,12 0.06 0.07 0.03 _ Uniform Delay. d1 74.7 33.0 6.4 70.6 29.0 11.0 60.5 60.5 48.2 71.3 71.2 Prflgress�gn Factor -10.80 0.66 2.06 0.87 0.74 1.28 0.84 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00 M Incremental Delay. d2 4.6 70.6 0.3 9.4 40.8 0.0 80.5 81.3 0.1O.4 0.2 Celay(s) 64.3 91.9 13.4 70.8 62.3 14.0 131A 132.2 47.6 71.8 71.4' Level of Service E F B E E B F F D E E Approach) 61ay (�) �„ � 11.1 62.9 126.0 71.6 Approach LOS E E F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 75.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volurrre to Capacity ratio 1 A6 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 154.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101-7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network Queues Page 17 31: Chenal Parkway & Kirk Road 5/30/2006 t I # --,,--- l Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL 5BT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 2651 198 261 2921 258 147 179 366 152 187 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.68 0.17 0.84 0.95 0.77 0.81 0.76 0.91 0.70 0.70 Control Delay 78.5 15.0 0.1 64.3 20.7 83.7 99.2 55.2 94.2 82.8 47.3 Queue Delay 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.5 21.4 0.1 64.3 20.7 83-7 99.2 55.2 94.2 82.8 47.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 668 0 134 870 132 148 91 190 149 92 Queue Length 95th (ft) m107 695 m0 m131 m618 #193 #267 #208 #285 #242 183 Internal Link Dist (ft), 309 464 678 1870 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 _ Base Capacity (vph) 223 3005 1170 312 3090 334 181 234 401 218 267 41MStarvation Cap Reductn 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.99 0-17 0.84 0.95 0.77 0.81 0.76 0.91 0.70 0.70;W" Intersection Summary - - - # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 05th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers. Inc. P1180; Chenal Area Road Network