HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog202
r
--.-~
e
-.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
LUDWW COVE, DIVISION 2
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
December 2004
Prepared for:
Port Ludlow Associates
GERALYN REINART, RE.
1319 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 103
SEAT1'LE, WASHINGTON 98109
(206) 285-9035
L()GITEIVl
#<') V A
-~.,------
Page ~~J.._.._c~._,_..._,.
"
e
e
e
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
LUDWW COVE, DIVISION 2
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGIDN
December 2004
Prepared for:
Port Ludlow Associates
GERALYN REINART, P.E.
1319 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 103
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109
(206) 285-9035
o
# ~Grr~M
;Ja~ 0 <--
. ge_ ~~
"'--""'-_ Of ---
--""-
-
e
e
e
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
December 8, 2004
To: Mark Dorsey, RE.
Port Ludlow Associates
From: Geralyn Reinart, RE.
Subject: Ludlow Cove, Division 2 - Traffic Impact Assessment
Introduction/Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the anticipated transportation impacts
resulting from the development of a 120-unit single-ownership time-share condominium
project in Port Ludlow. This report has briefly reviewed the current traffic conditions
adjacent to the site, the proposed action and its impacts to the transportation system, and
developed appropriate mitigation, as necessary.
The proposed condominium development would generate approximately 728 new daily
weekend trips; 89 of these daily weekend trips would occur during the peak hour.
Access to the condominium development would be from Paradise Bay Road across from
the existing Breaker Lane intersection. Critical intersections surrounding the site were
analyzed in the SDEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort (and referenced herein) and are
currently operating at good levels of service. The development of Ludlow Cove,
Division 2, would not significantly alter the operation of these intersections or prior
conclusions with respect to these intersections.
Specific details on the project and the analysis of its impacts can be found in the
subsequent sections. In general, the project will have a limited impact on the adjacent
transportation system.
Background/Project Description
The proposed Ludlow Cove development is located on the south side of Paradise Bay
Road across from the Breaker Lane intersection. The Ludlow Cove, Division 2,
preliminary binding site plan is for the development of 120 condominium units w.4iQItwill..
" OG \ . t:\V1
L-,.,
#: ~() ~
,~ "'2"....f
~-JBC'r-', /__'''/ _~_'_
1
--
e
-
e
range in size from 600 square feet to 1800 square feet. Ludlow Cove is located on the
southeasterly side of Paradise Bay Road south of Oak Bay Road, on the waterfront, across
from the Village Center. Access to the site will be from Paradise Bay Road opposite
Breaker Lane. A prior proposal for 52 townhouses and 46 cottage, courtyard, or hillside
homes was previously submitted for the site in 1996. The development of Ludlow Cove,
Division 1, includes 17 lots.
The area near the site includes residential and some commercial development, and
undeveloped parcels. The site is currently zoned for residential use and no change in
zoning is planned. A vicinity map of the area is shown on Figure 1 and a reduced copy
of the site plan has been attached.
The remainder of this report analyzes the effects of the development of the subject
property and the traffic-related impacts that can be expected on the adjacent intersections.
Existing Conditions
The proposed condominium development will primarily fmpact Paradise Bay Road from
which it takes access, with minor impacts to Oak Bay Road. The following describes
these roadways, existing traffic volumes, and current operating conditions.
1. Roadways
Paradise Bay Road is a minor collector that provides a connection between SR-
104 just west of the Hood Canal Bridge and Oak Bay Road within the Port Ludlow
community. The roadway is two lanes wide and is characterized by fairly gentle
horizontal and vertical curvature. The posted speed varies from 30 mph to 50 mph, with
a 40-mph speed posted within the Port Ludlow community. The roadway is 22 feet wide
with shoulders varying from about one foot up to ten feet. (The wider shoulder width is
typically located at the intersections serving newer developments.) The roadway is
fronted by undeveloped parcels, residential lots, and some commercial development near
its intersection with Oak Bay Road.
Oak Bay Road is a maj or collector that provides access 'from Beaver Valley Road to the
Oak Bay/Fort Flagler area to the north, traveling through the Port Ludlow community.
The roadway is approximately 20-22 feet wide with shoulders up to three feet wide in
certain areas, and open ditches. The posted speed is 40 mph. An all-way stop controls
the intersection of Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road.
2. Traffic Volumes
Extensive traffic count data was included in the Pan Ludlow Reson SDEIS and is
referenced herein. This data included weekday and weekend peak hour counts (or
LOG ITErvl
2 # d... tJ 'l.,
---------..
PPOP y____ O~_"._
.
-
e
e
estimates) at the intersections of Paradise Bay Road/SR-104, SR-104/Beaver Valley Road,
Oak Bay Road/Beaver Valley Road, Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road, Teal Lake
Road/Paradise Bay Road, and Oak Bay Road/Walker Way. The weekend peak hour for all
of the intersections within Port Ludlow (i. e. Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road, Oak Bay
Road/Walker Way, and Paradise Bay Road/Teal 4ke Road) occurred on Saturday during
the late morning/early afternoon, whereas the intersections along SR-I04 or SR-19
peaked on Sunday afternoon. At all locations, the weekend peak hour total approach
volumes were higher than the weekday peak hour volumes.
Since the publication of the SDEIS, additional traffic count data has been collected
adjacent to the project site for use in this assessment, and includes a peak hour count at
the intersection of Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane. Figure 2 shows weekday and
weekend (estimated) peak hour volumes at the intersection. Also included are the current
weekday and weekend daily volumes on Paradise Bay Road adjacent to the project site.
Jefferson County has indicated an annual traffic growth rate of 3.41 % on the arterials in
the project vicinity.
3. Level of Service
Capacity analyses for the weekday and weekend peak hours were conducted at Paradise
Bay Road/Breaker Lane in order to determine the current level of service. This
intersection is currently a "T" intersection that will be modified to a four-legged
intersection to provide access to the condominiums, with traffic on the Beaker Lane
and project access approaches controlled by stop signs, i.e. traffic on Paradise Bay Road
has the right-of-way.
"Level of service" is a common term used in the Traffic Engineering profession that is
defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic
stream, and its perception by motorists and/or passengers. These conditions are usually
described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are designated,
ranging from "A" to "F", with level of service "A" representing the best operating
conditions and level of service "F" the worst. Jefferson County considers level of
service "C" or better acceptable in areas outside the urban line and level of service "D"
or better acceptable in areas within the urban lines and along urban/tourist corridors.
Calculations for the level of service analyses were conducted using the McTrans
Highway Capacity Software version 4.1d based on the 2000 Highway Cavacity Manual.
The following table shows the current levels of service for the critical movements on the
approaches. The critical movements are typically those movements that are controlled
by a stop or yield sign or left-turn movements from the major street. Calculations for
the level of service analyses have been attached. The peak hour volumes shown on
Figure 2 and described earlier were used in these analyses.
3
L()G ITE.IVI
:# ~~
Page. 5:__pf_._.
-
-
e
e
TABLE 1
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
PARADISE BAY ROAD/BREAKER LANE
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST-
BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL
W~k~y LOS A LOS A
N.A. 9.4 sec. 7.5 sec.' N.A. N.A.
W~~nd LOS A LOS A
N.A. 9.5 sec. 7.6 sec. N.A. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis or not a critical movement)
Note: Paradise Bay Road considered the east/west roadway in the analyses.
Where:
LOS Delay
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & < 35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsignalized intersections)
'Dible 1 shows the level of service results for the weekday and weekend peak hours
indicating that all movements at the intersection are operating at level of service "C" or
better, with little delay experienced by the critical movements. These results are similar
to the levels of service at adjacent intersections in Port Ludlow.
4. Traffic Accidents
Traffic accident data was provided by Jefferson County for Paradise Bay Road near the
project site. The following table summarizes the accident frequency for this section of the
roadway for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
4
LO(~ \TEM
#.-l-O A -
Page __.lL___.of_~-
_n
-.--.
e
e
Accident Tvoe
Property Fatalitv
LocationlYear DamW!e Injurv Total
Paradise Bay Road at Oak Bay Road
(MP 0.00)
2000 0 0 0 0
2001 1 0 0 1
2002 0 0 0 0
2003 0 0 0 0
Paradise Bay Road:
Between Oak Bay Road and
Spinnaker Place (MP 0.00-0.45)
2000 0 0 0 0
2001 1 0 0 1
2002 0 0 0 0
2003 0 1 0 1
TABLE 2
ACCIDENT HISTORY
The accident data shows a very limited number of collisions occurring near the project
site. One collision was reported at the Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road intersection and
two collisions on Paradise Bay Road between Oak Bay Road and Spinaker Place. The
collision at Oak Bay Road/Paradise Bay Road was a rear-end collision. Both of the
collisions on Paradise Bay Road between Oak Bay Road and Spinaker Place were single-
vehicle collisions leaving the roadway. An injury was reported in one of these collisions.
Overall, the frequency of accidents in the area is low.
5. Transit/Non-Motorized Facilities
Transit service in Jefferson County is provided by Jefferson Transit. Port Ludlow is
served by the Port Ludlow/Poulsbo/Tri Area #7 route, which provides service between
Port Townsend and Poulsbo via the Tri Area and Port Ludlow. Service is provided daily,
although service is reduced on the weekend. Weekday service begins at approximately
6:00 AM and continues until approximately 6:00 PM, at approximately one and a half
to four hour head ways. Weekend service is limited to one AM and one PM run in each
direction. The Port Ludlow Village Store, across the street from the project site, is
listed as a scheduled time point along the route.
Some paved pathways have been constructed within the Port Ludlow development, which
meander through the residential areas. Sidewalks have been constructed within the most
recent subdivisions. A comprehensive community-wide pedestrian trail plan has been
approved by Jefferson County and is being constructed in phases. The trail system is
intended to serve recreational uses, as well as provide a network between activity nodes
such as the recreation center, marina, and commercial complex. No pathways are
i...OG ITEM
ti ~<() ~
5 . ~----...-.
P~g~ 1 of --
-"'''.'._-''- "--"""~-"----'" ~.,''''~,.,--,,>
.
-
e
e
currently constructed through the project site.
6. Roadway Improvements
Jefferson County currently has a proposed project to widen approximately 2150 linear
feet of Paradise Bay Road between Oak Bay Road and Spinaker Place. Construction of
this project is scheduled for summer of 2005.
Project Traffic
The development of the condominiums will generate new traffic onto the adjacent
transportation system. The following sections summarize the impacts associated with the
proposed action.
1. Trip Generation
The proposed condominiums would generate new traffic onto the adjacent roadways. The
lTE Triv Generation Manual (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
2003, -rt' Edition) is typically used to estimate the number of trips expected to be
generated by a development; however, data collected as part of the traffic monitoring
program in the year 2002 in Port Ludlow has been used instead. This same information
was also used in the SDElS for the Port Ludlow resort and has been used for consistency
purposes. Furthermore, a comparison of the more recent 2003 monitoring data shows
that the 2002 values are slightly higher and therefore will provide a more conservative
estimate for this assessment.
The trip generation estimate has also assumed 100% occupancy of the units, whereas
information provided by Trend West has indicated that 90 % occupancy is typical. The
peak hour trip rate used for the proposed Ludlow Cove, Division 2, condominiums is
about 70 % higher than the trip rate used in the FElS for the Mountain Star MPR in
Kittitas County for the Trend West time-share condominiums. Additionally, employee
trips have been included in the estimate and assumes that on the weekend up to 20
employees could be on-site. A total of four daily trips and 0.50 peak hour trips per
employee have been estimated. These values combined result in a very conservative trip
generation estimate. Thble 3 summarizes the weekend trip generation associated with the
proposed action.
L()G ITEM
# ~O).., ~ _
~. c''::ir)f':'C' f?tL 0f
' C?','\..:;,c ~#
,... -",-,- .............. -'"'~
6
--
-
e
e
Trip Rate Peak Hour Trips
Daily/PM Peak Daily Trips In/Out Total
Condominiums
(120 units) 5.40/0.66 648 43/36 79
Employees
(20 employees) 4.00/0.50 80 5/5 10
- . . -.
Total Trips :;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:;::::::::::=:::=::::::::::::::: 728 48/41 89
:~:~:~:~:~:~~:~~;:~~;:~:::~:;:~:~;:~~~~::~~~~~~:::::~~::~~~~~~:;:~;:::::~~~
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED WEEKEND TRIP GENERATION
LUDLOW COVE, DIVISION 2
(120 UNITS)
The trip generation estimates shown in Thble 3 are higher than the values estimated for
the site in 1996, and those used in the SDEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort due to the
higher number of units proposed.
2. Trip Distribution/ Asshmment
The estimated trip distribution/assignment for the weekend daily and peak hour volumes
is shown on Figure 3. The distribution of traffic is based on current travel patterns, a
review of the existing roadway system and activity centers, prior studies, and the proposed
land use. Many of the trips associated with the proposed action will be destined to and
from other activities/areas within Port Ludlow, i.e., the commercial area, the community
center, golf course, other housing areas and/or could include social trips within the
community. Reasons for traveling beyond the Port Ludlow community include major
shopping, medical/health care, or social/recreational opportunities, for example. Some of
the trips would require traveling on SR-104 to reach the ultimate destination, with many
trips using Oak Bay Road or Beaver Valley Road to acce~s the Tn-Area or Port Townsend
areas. Many of the trips are expected to stay within the Port Ludlow community. The
proposed action would create its greatest traffic-related impact on Paradise Bay Road,
which provides direct access to the site.
3. Traffic Volumes
Figures 4 and 5 show the projected weekend daily and PM peak hour traffic volumes for
the year 2010 with and without the project trips. Although the project is expected to be
completed by 2007, the 2010 horizon year was used to be consistent with the SDEIS
prepared for the Port Ludlow Resort analysis. The existing peak hour volumes were
increased 3.41 % annually for the 2010 volumes to account for miscellaneous background,
which is the growth rate consistent with County projections for the vicinity. Additionally,
traffic associated with pipeline development trips was also added into the existing
volumes. The "pipeline trips" consist of the traffic associated with the ~~nff~g
# ~aA
Peo€' cr of
'- ....~"'-'"'- ..','-"'_-M_...'-'.......~_ __""''''''_
7
.
.
e
e
units proposed for construction in Port Ludlow, consistent with forecasts shown in the
SDEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort.
The "without project" conditions are the volumes shown on Figure 4. The trips
associated with the proposed project were added into the volumes shown on Figure 4 to
produce the volumes shown on Figure 5.
4. Level of Service
Level of service calculations were conducted again for the Paradise Bay Road/Breaker
Lane intersection. It was assumed for purposes of analysis that no changes in the
geometric conditions at the intersection would occur over the next six years other than the
construction of the fourth leg to serve the project site. The results of the future
conditions with and without the site trips are shown in Thble 4.
TABLE 4
2010 WEEKEND LEVELS OF SERVICE
PARADISE BAY ROAD/BREAKER LANE
11!:I:lllll:I:'::i:illli:~...:!!I::IIIIII'!I:~I:.l!!I:111'.:::.il.II:::il~:I:l::il'.::i:III'I:.I.li::[i:.I:.: NORm- SOUTH- EAST- WEST-
BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL
Without Project LOS B LOS A
N.A. 11.6 sec. 8.0 sec. N.A. N.A.
With Project LOS C LOS B LOS Ai LOS A
17.3 sec. 14.1 sec. 8.0 sec.! 8. 1 sec. N.A.
N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provi~ed for specific analysis or not a critical movement)
Note: Paradise Bay Road considered the east/west roadway in the analyses; (northbound movement is the
new site access).
Where:
WS Dela
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 & < 15 seconds
C > 15 & < 25 seconds
D > 25 & < 35 seconds
E > 35 & < 50 seconds
F > 50 seconds
(for unsignalized intersections)
The results of the capacity analyses for the future conditions show only minor increases in
delay from the existing conditions. All critical movements (left-turns from the main street
LC>G ITEM
#: :tQv
P?rif:'~... ~__~ of .
l.,,,.~ "_"'~_
8
.
.
e
e
and all side street movements) at the intersection are expected to operate at level of
service "C" or better, with or without the project.
5. Site Access/Need for Turn Storaee
Paradise Bay Road will provide access to the project site across from the Breaker Lane
intersection. Breaker Lane provides secondary access to the commercial center and
access to several offices and provides a connection to Oaf Bay Road. The need for
left-turn storage on Paradise Bay Road at this access has been reviewed using Figure 910-
9a from the WSDOT Design Manual (figure has been attached). Based on the anticipated
volume of left-turns from Paradise Bay Road from either direction, left-turn storage is not
recommended. The need for right-turn storage on Paradise Bay Road was also reviewed
using Figure 910-12 from the WSDOT Design Manual. Based on the projected volume of
right-turns at this location, a right-turn radius is recommended.
The entering and stopping sight distances along Paradise Bay Road for the site access was
reviewed. Paradise Bay Road slopes downward from Oak Bay Road and some horizontal
curvature exists on either side of the site access. A fair amount of brush and shrubbery is
located along the project frontage that creates some visibility limitations, especially to the
east/northeast. The posted speed is 40 mph. The required entering sight distance for a
40-mph design speed is 445 feet, and 500 feet for a 45-mph design speed according to the
AASHW 2001 edition of A PoliCJl on Geometric Design. of Highways and Streets. The
required stopping sight distance for a 40-mph design speed is 305 feet and 360 feet for a
45-mph design speed. i
The entering sight distance to the west/southwest (driver's left) measures approximately
550 feet and the stopping sight distance from the west/southwest measured over 500 feet.
The entering sight distance to the east/northeast (driver's right) measured approximately
490 feet and the stopping sight distance from the east/northeast measured approximately
450 feet. Based on AASHW guidelines, the intersection meets both entering and
stopping sight distance requirements for the posted speed and a design speed of 45-mph,
with the exception of the entering sight distance to the east/northeast for a 45-mph design
speed. The entering sight distance is limited by the brush and shrubs along the site
frontage, and the trimming back of some of the branches and brush should be adequate to
attain the additional sight distance to meet the 45-mph design speed.
Project Impacts
Ludlow Cove will be located near the major activity areas within Port Ludlow, i.e., the
retail center, the marina, and the Inn. The number of trips associated with Ludlow
Cove would have a limited impact on the adjacent roadways. As in prior analyses within
Port Ludlow, the weekend traffic impacts were reviewed since they are typically worse .
than the weekday impacts. Also, the local intersections tend to experience ti@€& \TEM
#->>_L--'
9 page_lC__of----
-
--
e
e
higher peak hour. volumes on the weekends than on the weekdays. The new
condominiums would generate approximately 728 weekend daily trips, with 89 new trips
during the PM peak hour. The main impact from the project would be to Paradise Bay
Road, which will provide access to other arterials or to social, entertainment, or
shopping opportunities. The additional volumes generated by the project are within the
capacities of the intersections and roadways in the area. The site will take its access
from the Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane intersection, which is expected to operate
acceptably upon construction of the fourth leg of the intersection.
The major County intersections that will be impacted by the development (Le. Paradise
Bay Road/Teal Lake Road, Paradise Bay Road/Oak Bay Road, and Oak Bay Road/Walker
Way) were analyzed as part of the SDEIS for the Port Ludlow Resort and are expected to
continue to operate at good levels of service with or without the development. Although
the proposed action will generate slightly more traffic than was estimated in the SDEIS
for the site, the additional trips are not of a magnitude to create any significant change in
the level of service at these adjacent intersections.
Jefferson County Staff had indicated in the 1996 submittal for Ludlow Cove that there
are no provisions for future channelization on Paradise Bay Road at the access and that
the access should line up with the retail center driveway. i The current site plan has
aligned the accesses, however no provisions for left-tumstorage have been provided since
the threshold for storage requirements has not been met.
The sight distance for the access was also reviewed. The stopping sight distances are
adequate, however the field review of the sight distance shows that shrubs and brush along
the site frontage provide some entering sight distance limitations. The trimming back of
the shrubs and brush would improve the entering sight distance to east/northeast.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The development of Ludlow Cove will generate additional traffic onto the existing
transportation system. The site access will operate at level of service "C" or better in the
future, with or without the project.
Frontage improvements and roadway construction per the current County standards
should be provided. Due to the limited off-site impacts associated with the project, no
other mitigation is recommended.
.:. .-r'"", ......
LUG ;--,.. E-fl/l
;4~ao ~ ~ vi
Pag6'_ I ~;T-'-
~"~--.
10
-
e
FIGURES/ATTACHMENTS
11
--
e
.~'-EM
LOG \ \ ~.
# M-~--'
~) {18 l2-_cf__..-
t a_, _'
c,r:.. ~TFM
-
-
fprOject Site
~~~
;-",.,.-,.-.,-,,- c'"
.,"\
I
I
i
, I
- ---'----T----
I
I
1
1 ?os?,!
t,oU_/
i _
F~IDENL
i
1
I
I
i
i
--- -- - - --t-----
-"-;;,
,~;c. .;'::. ,.__,"_'~'
:;,::,;:::",
i jlOV.o'"
l!f.f~1Jl.Cl.f
I
i
I
I
I
,
I
!
Gerolyn Reinart, P.L
1319 Dexter Avenue North, # 103
Seattle, WA. 98109
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
NORTH
(NOT TO SCALE)
LOG il EM
# (). t() ~
Page -...L.~.L
f
--;""""""~
Ludlow Cove, Div. 2
Jefferson County, WA.
Page
F-1
.
.
Weekda Peak Hour Weekend Peak Hour
118 127 NORTH
2-1 2-1 (NOT TO SCALE)
116 125
5 5
521 .~o1 561 ~'o1
n. ~ n. ~
47 ..: 51 ..:
0 0
130 133
28..y 29..y
158 162
\
.--
(
/
I
I
./
. &.O~
~\ \P~
~O
/
..
"
"
(
,
,
\
/
I
"
/
./
"
..._-----~
I
Project Site
SR-19
(xx
- peak hour volume
xxxx
- August 2003 weekend average daily volume
(xxxx) - 2003 Jefferson County overage daily volume
LOG iTEM
#~r
CURRENT DAILY & PEAK HOUR VOLUME$'aae_LL_of
FIGURE 2
-""~'
Geralyn Reinart, P.E.
1319 Dexter Avenue North, #103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Ludlow Cove, Div. 2
Jefferson County, WA.
Page
F-2
.
.
NORTH
(NOT TO SCALE)
xx% - Percent Distribution
(xx) - Peak Hour Volume
[xx] - Daily Volume
(6)
15% t
[109]
(7)
\
,'-
Local trips -
5 in/5 out
I
/
/
o 6)./
10~" oR;""
, f)U~
'\ \.,.~
~O'{.
/
/
"
"
"
/
/
\
I
/
"
f .-___
'../
./
I
..-..._---~
(7)
15% t
[109]
(6)
Project Site
SR-19
, OG \TEM
l.-
#-R-O-~-r
ESTIMA TED WEEKEND TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ A~~8~N~--
FIGURE 3
Gerelyn Reinert, P.E.
1319 Dexter Avenue North, # 103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Ludlow Cove, Div. 2
Jefferson County. WA.
Page
F-3
(xx
.
Weekend Peak Hour
5-10
275
10
90 r ."Ok1Ln. ~ .
80 ..:
o
265
45'1
310
\
I
./
. &.O~
\ \-.~
~O'{
./
.
NORTH
(NOT TO SCALE)
.--
f
/
/
\
...-----.---
Project Site
SR-19
- peak hour volume
xxxx
- 2010 estimated weekend averoge doily volume
/
"
"
/
,
/
, ,
\
/
"
/
I
LOG ITEM
# 2f-tJ ~
Page_J"'" _ of-
2010 ESTIMATED WEEKEND DAILY & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
WITHOUT PROJECT
FIGURE 4
Geralyn Reinart. P.E.
1319 Dexter Avenue North, #103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Ludlow Cove, Div. 2
Jefferson County, WA.
Page
F-4
(xx
u____.,
--
Weekend Peak Hour
302
5~22
275
10
104f &reol(~' 117
14 n'?I. 14
~C 41
80 ...: ce&&
o 10
285
4~12
342
\
I
./
. ~O~
\~~
~Olf..
./
/
"
.
NORTH
(NOT TO SCALE)
---
(
I
I
/
..
.._-.;.-----
Project Site
SR-19
- peak hour volume
xxxx
- 2010 estimated weekend average daily volume
"
"
/
,
,
\
/
/
/
l.-(H3 \TEM
:f'. )-,
'- ~ nf
V_r~) '=I i', or, L_"::-."" - .-
~ c.:~~..,C _~,'_'_' ...8" -^ ,-
2010 ESTIMATED WEEKEND DAILY & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
WITH PROJECT
FIGURE 5
Geralyn Reinart. P.E.
1319 Dexter Avenue North. # 103
Seattle. WA. 98109
Ludlow Cove, Div. 2
Jefferson County, WA.
Page
F-5
25
20
15
10
5
% Total OHV Turning Left (single turning movement)
(1) OHV is total vOlb"me from both directions.
(2) Speeds are post&d speeds.
Left-Turn Storage Guidelines (Two-Lane. UnsignaJized)
Figure 910-fliJ.
900
800 ;:-
>
::r:
~ . .G. ~ . _~\
a . V o~:)
:z.o~ l~"'~O:;~
....."'\ {2 \\1)';:>
\..\;JU \.,\J'P
600 (\~~o \
~~)
- 500
400
300
o
lOG \TEM
:# ~p~---
- t1 rtf
r'... J'=1l"),.... ''''..__
r O":"~_.;_.~' "'-'-
Intersections At Grade
Page 910-18
English Version
Design Manual
May 2001
"
.
e
e
100
Q)
E
::J
o
> 60
c
....
::J
-
I
-
..c
0')
a: 40
Consider right-turn
pocket or taper(4)
Consider right-turn
lane(S)
:;-
:r: 80
o
....
::J
o
:r:
~
~ 20
Q)
D....
Radius only
~-----~--=-
(8)
\,.-..(\ ~
f,.~ ~("\~ '
i ....,
_/~ \ tlV-J
--~-- (p" ~l
o
o
100
200 300 400 500 600 700
Peak Hour pproach Volume (DDHV) (1)
. c~:;"(',,,,~-~e'f: L\..)... ('>-<~
\J-) 0 l~~eJ:. \ ~
I (1) For two-lane highways, use the peak hour l.2Q!::fi (through + right-turn).
For multilane, high speed highways (posted speed 45 mph or above), use the right-lane peak hour
approach volume (through + right-turn).
For multilane, low speed highways (posted speed less than 45 mph), there is no traffic volume
right-turn lane or taper requirement.
(2) When all three of the following conditions are met, reduce the right-turn DDHV by 20.
· The posted speed is 45 mph or less
· The righHurn volume is greater than 40 VPH.
· The Deak hour approach volume rDDHV) is less than 300 VPH.
(3) See Figure 910-.8. for right-turn corner design.
(4) See Figure 910-1~ for right-turn pocket or taper design.
(5) See Figure 910- 1.1 for right-turn lane design.
(6) For additional guidance, see 910.07(2) in the text.
Right-Turn Lane Guidelines(6)
Figure 910-12
LOG ITEM
-# ~O ~ . ___
Page~W,___of_ _.
Intersections At Grade
Page 910-28
English Version
Design Manual
May 2001
HCS2000:
un!IPgna.ed
TWO-WAY STOP
.
Intersections Release
4_
CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: gar
Agency/Co. :
Date Performed: 10/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: PM peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: existing 6L~V l?~rHJ\
Project ID: Ludlow Cove ~-~I-~~~J
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound
2 3
T R
28
0.82
34
2
Undivided
130
0.82
158
Westbound
4 5 6
L T R
116 2
0.95 0.95
122 2
/
1 0
TR
No
Southbound
10 11 12
L T R
5 47
0.81 0.81
6 58
4 4
0
/ No /
0 0
LR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
o 1
LT
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Northbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%) 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes
Configuration
Delay,
EB
1
LT
Queue Length, and Level of
WB Northbound
4 7 8 9
Service
Southbound
10 11
LR
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
12
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
vie
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
34
1463
0.02
0.07
7.5
A
\ ~ I
64
884
0.07
0.23
9.4
A
9.4
LO@ ITEM
.1~ ~ 0 (f,------
,11' ___------
r"J".:l~"l"" ~ J of
r c::~,c .-,..-.CL-+-- --- ...,~
e
.
-
e
Geralyn Reinart, P.E.
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d
1319 Dexter Ave. North, #103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Phone: (206) 285-9035
E-Mail:
Fax:
(206) 285-6345
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: gar
Agency/Co. :
Date Performed: 10/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: PM peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: existing
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Peak-15 Minute Volume
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
Minor Street Movements
28
0.82
9
34
2
Undivided
130
0.82
40
158
116
0.95
31
122
2
0.95
1
2
/
o 1
LT
1 0
TR
No
10 11 12
L T R
5 47
0.81 0.81
2 15
6 58
4 4
0
/ No /
0 0
LR
No
7
L
8
T
9
R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Peak-15 Minute Volume
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%) 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Movements
Flow (ped/hr)
o
o
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/sec)
Percent Blockage
e
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
e
12.0
4.0
o
Prog.
Flow
vph
Upstream Signal Data
Sat Arrival Green Cycle
Flow Type Time Length
vph sec sec
Prog.
Speed
mph
Distance
to Signal
feet
S2 Left-Turn
Through
S5 Left-Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2
Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
158
o
1700
1700
1
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4
L L
t(c,base) 4.1
t(c,hv) 1. 00 1. 00
P(hv) 2
t(c,g)
Grade/lOa
t(3,lt) 0.00
t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00
t (c) 1-stage 4.1
2-stage
Follow-Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4
L L
- -.. '..-----------
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
7.1 6.2
1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
4 4
0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.70 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1. 00 1. 00 0.00 1. 00 1. 00 0.00
6.4 6.2
7
L
8
T
9
R
10 11 12
L T R
3.50 3.30
0.90 0.90 0.90
4 4
3.5 3.3
t(f,base)
t(f,HV)
P(HV)
t (f)
2.20
0.90
2
2.2
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
~'3
MQvxr9~n;t...~. ..
V (t) u...~ll !?~VI)
# d~D ') ,
> Page -2---9- of____
',""'_":,,lo
V prog
e
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (see)
Cycle Length, C (see)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g (q1)
g(q2)
g(q)
tit
Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
Movement 5
V (t) V (1, prot)
alpha
beta
Travel time, t(a) (see)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
P (2)
P (5)
p(dom)
p(subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
0.000
0.000
r
Proportion
unblocked
for minor
movements, p(x)
( 1)
Single-stage
Process
(2) (3)
Two-Stage Process
Stage I Stage II
p (1)
P (4)
p(7)
P (8)
P (9)
P (10)
P (11)
P (12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single-Stage Process
Movement
1
L
4
L
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
V c, x
s
Px
V c,U,x
124
349
123
C r,x
C plat,x
.)
.l.:
.~~~
Two-Stage Process
7
8
\ - L\
10
11
e
stage 1 Stage2 Stagel Stage2
e
Stagel Stage2
Stagel Stage2
V(c,x)
s
P(x)
V(c,u,x)
1500
C(r,x)
C(plat,x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor st.
9
12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
1. 00
123
923
1. 00
923
0.94
1. 00
Step 2:-LT from Major st.
4
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
1. 00
124
1463
1. 00
1463
0.98
0.97
1. 00
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
11
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
1. 00
0.97
1. 00
0.97
1. 00
1. 00
Step 4: LT from Minor st.
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.97
0.98
0.92
349
644
1. 00
0.98
629
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
11
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
LOG ITEM
# .2!QA
Pagc,,___ Q%Of~-=-
-
-'--
e
e
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.97
1. 00
0.97
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St.
1. 00
1. 00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.97
0.98
0.92
349
644
1. 00
0.98
629
Results for Two-stage process:
a
y
C t
629
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
Volume (vph)
Movement Capacity (vph)
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
6
629
58
923
~.' J.V" .~
'r) 1~;~.,j;1J!_._\. I... l~
884
e e
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
C sep 629 923
Volume 6 58
Delay
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
C sh 884
SUM C sep
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config LT LR
v (vph) 34 64
C(m) (vph) 1463 884
vlc 0.02 0.07
95% queue length 0.07 0.23
Control Delay 7.5 9.4
LOS A A
Approach Delay 9.4
Approach LOS A
Worksheet ll-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
p(oj)
v(il) ,
v (i2 ) ,
s (il) ,
s (i2) ,
P*(oj)
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
Volume for
Volume for
Saturation
Saturation
stream 2 or 5
stream 3 or 6
flow rate for
flow rate for
stream
stream
Movement 2 Movement 5
0.98 1. 00
158
0
2 or 5 1700
3 or 6 1700
0.97
7.5
1
0.2
lanes
1'-1
LOG ITEM
p~g~ oL._
}-7
HCS2000: U1ItgnaliZed Intersections Reletlj 4.1d
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: gar
Agency/Co. :
Date Performed: 11/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: weekend peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: existing
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: . Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound
2 3
T R
Major Street:
29
0.82
35
2
Undivided
133
0.82
162
Westbound
4 5 6
L T R
125 2
0.90 0.90
138 2
/
1 0
TR
No
Southbound
10 11 12
L T R
5 51
0.80 0.80
6 63
4 4
0
/ No /
0 0
LR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
o 1
LT
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Northbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%) 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes
Configuration
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
12
Delay,
EB
1
LT
Queue Length, and Level of
WB Northbound
478 9
Service
Southbound
10 11
LR
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
35
1443
0.02
0.07
7.6
A
~,
;--"'hj(
~ n' ...~..-... ""b."''''- -
,,--.' -,' '1)
"--.. -. '.. ---- -<(;-
, -,~-r
l~
69
868
0.08
0.26
9.5
A
9.5
A
,:00,_:,
e
e
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Geralyn Reinart, P.E.
1319 Dexter Ave. North, #103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Phone: (206) 285-9035
E-Mail:
Fax:
(206) 285-6345
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: gar
Agency /Co. :
Date Performed: 11/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: weekend peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: existing
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5
L T R L T
Volume 29 133 125
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.90
Peak-15 Minute Volume 9 41 35
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 162 138
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2
Median Type/Storage Undivided /
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11
L T R L T
Volume 5
Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.80
Peak-15 Minute Volume 2
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage /
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 0
Configuration LR
6
R
2
0.90
1
2
12
R
51
0.80
16
63
4
No /
Flow (ped/hr)
o
o
o
o
Movements
Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments
13 14 15 l6
("),
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/sec)
Percent Blockage
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
e
12.0
4.0
o
e
Prog.
Flow
vph
Upstream Signal Data
Sat Arrival Green Cycle
Flow Type Time Length
vph sec sec
Prog.
Speed
mph
Distance
to Signal
feet
S2 Left-Turn
Through
S5 Left-Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2
Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
162
o
1700
1700
1
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4
L L
t(c,base) 4.1
t(c,hv) 1. 00 1. 00
P(hv) 2
t(c,g)
Grade/100
t(3,lt) 0.00
t (c, T) : 1-stage 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00
t (c) 1-stage 4.1
2-stage
Follow-Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4
L L
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
7.1 6.2
1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
4 4
0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.70 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1. 00 1. 00 0.00 1. 00 1. 00 0.00
6.4 6.2
7
L
8
T
9
R
10 11 12
L T R
3.50 3.30
0.90 0.90 0.90
4 4
3.5 3.3
t(f,base)
t(f,HV)
P(HV)
t (f)
2.20
0.90
2
2.2
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clea1;"Efnce Tt:it1.e',;fl-t Upstream Signal
. '. . Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog
r ..J:....j-.i
. .')rJ..7-
-,0.
Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot)
t '- \ 0
e e
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g (q1)
g (q2)
g (q)
Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot)
alpha
beta
Travel time, t (a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
p(2)
P (5)
p(dom)
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
0.000
0.000
Proportion
unblocked
for minor
movements, p(x)
(1 )
Single-stage
Process
(2) (3)
Two-Stage Process
Stage I Stage II
P (1)
P (4)
p(7)
P (8)
P (9)
P (10)
p(ll)
p(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single-Stage Process
Movement
1
L
4
L
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
V C,x
s
Px
V c,u,x
140,
371
139
7
8
r~ \ l
lJ~)G . ITEM
# ;)~j)-~
Pag~.~ f __~f_~_~
11
C r,x
C plat,x
Two-Stage Process
10
e
e
Stage 1 Stage2 stage 1 Stage2 Stage 1 Stage2 Stagel Stage2
V(c,x)
s
P(x)
V(c,u,x)
1500
C(r,x)
C(plat,x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor st.
9
12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
1. 00
139
904
1. 00
904
0.93
1. 00
Step 2: LT from Major St.
4
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
1. 00
140
1443
1. 00
1443
0.98
0.97
1. 00
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
11
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
1. 00
0.97
1. 00
0.97
1. 00
1. 00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.97
0.98
0.91
371
626
1. 00
0.98
611
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
11
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
C~p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
",~,.2:.
'])~..
1- \7
e
e
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.97
1. 00
0.97
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St.
1. 00
1. 00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.97
0.98
0.91
371
626
1. 00
0.98
611
Results for Two-stage process:
a
y
C t
611
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
I~ \-:<
....... r"" l"""r:=~ I!
6 &...lJ.::;. I l..dvl 63
#;:-2~- 904
pagE_~r}
Volume (vph)
Movement Capacity (vph)
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
e e
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
C sep 611 904
Volume 6 63
Delay
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
C sh 868
SUM C sep
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config LT LR
v (vph) 35 69
C(m) (vph) 1443 868
vlc 0.02 0.08
95% queue length 0.07 0.26
Control Delay 7.6 9.5
LOS A A
Approach Delay 9.5
Approach LOS A
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
p(oj)
v(il) ,
v (i2) I
s (il) I
s (i2) I
P*(oj)
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
Volume for
Volume for
Saturation
Saturation
stream 2 or 5
stream 3 or 6
flow rate for
flow rate for
stream
stream
Movement 2 Movement 5
0.98 1. 00
162
0
2 or 5 1700
3 or 6 1700
0.97
7.6
1
0.2
lanes
,.,;)1J", ." t\
2> ,.
\ - \4,
HCS2000: U1ItgnaliZed Intersections Reletlf 4.1d
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: gar
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed: 11/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: weekend peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 w/out project
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs):
0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound
2 3
T R
45
0.82
54
2
Undivided
265
0.82
323
Westbound
4 5 6
L T R
275 5
0.90 0.90
305 5
/
1 0
TR
No
Southbound
10 11 12
L T R
10 80
0.80 0.80
12 99
4 4
0
/ No /
0 0
LR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
o 1
LT
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Northbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%) 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes
Configuration
Delay,
EB
1
LT
Queue Length, and Level of
WB Northbound
478 9
Service
Southbound
10 11 12
LR
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
54
1250
0.04
0.14
8.0
A
( ~ \
111
657
0.17
0.60
11. 6
B
11. 6
B
:t.-(>G \TCM
#~--_.
pag~_of_..~.~-
e
e
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Geralyn Reinart, P.E.
1319 Dexter Ave. North, #103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Phone: (206) 285-9035
E-Mail:
Fax:
(206) 285-6345
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: gar
Agency ICo. :
Date Performed: 11/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: weekend peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 w/out project
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs):
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5
L T R L T
Volume 45 265 275
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.90
Peak-15 Minute Volume 14 81 76
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 323 305
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2
Median Type/Storage Undivided I
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11
L T R L T
Volume 10
Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.80
Peak-15 Minute Volume 3
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4
Percent Grade (% ) 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage /
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 0
Configuration LR
0.25
6
R
5
0.90
1
5
12
R
80
0.80
25
99
4
No /
Movements
,I'~~, . i'j' r' i, {;
pedestric!1"i'Vo~in~slV~md Adjustments
1.~d.O_..~~..'__~_n~5 16
: 'Q~_O_ "'___.0.__ 0
t
Flow (ped/hr)
-,~ 7
e
e
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/sec)
Percent Blockage
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
Prog.
Flow
vph
Upstream Signal Data
Sat Arrival Green Cycle
Flow Type Time Length
vph sec sec
Prog.
Speed
mph
Distance
to Signal
feet
S2 Left-Turn
Through
S5 Left-Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2
Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
323
o
1700
1700
1
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and FOllow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4
L L
t(c,base) 4.1
t(c,hv) 1. 00 1. 00
P(hv) 2
t(c,g)
Grade/100
t(3,lt) 0.00
t (c, T) : 1-stage 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00
t (c) 1-stage 4.1
2-stage
Follow-Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4
L L
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
7.1 6.2
1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
4 4
0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.70 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1. 00 1. 00 0.00 1. 00 1. 00 0.00
6.4 6.2
7
L
8
T
9
R
10 11 12
L T R
3.50 3.30
0.90 0.90 0.90
4 4
3.5 3.3
t(f,base)
t(f,HV)
P(HV)
t (f)
2.20
0.90
2
2.2
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
(<C.3
~~~IEM
~(t(J () )..Y (1, prot)
~-_....._-----
Pao,e 37m
'-i -- ---T--'---- --""-'""
V prog
e
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (see)
Cycle Length, C (see)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g (q1)
g(q2)
g(q)
It
Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot)
alpha
beta
Travel time, t (a) (see)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
P (2)
P (5)
p(dom)
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
0.000
0.000
Proportion
unblocked
for minor
movements, p(x)
(1)
Single-stage
Process
(2) (3)
Two-Stage Process
Stage I Stage II
p (1)
P (4)
P (7)
P (8)
P (9)
P (10)
P (11)
P (12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single-Stage Process
Movement
1
L
4
L
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
v c, x
s
Px
V c,u,x
310
739
308
C r,x
C plat,x
L, '(',(,."
Two-Stage Process
'~' ~;.c
.~t 7--. ,"_.,,_n
...,~
J ..' . ._.
8
10
11
L
7
"7 _L(
e
e
Stage 1 Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stage 1 Stage2
V(c,x)
s
P(x)
V(c,u,x)
1500
C(r,x)
C(plat,x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor st.
9
12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
1. 00
308
727
1. 00
727
0.86
1. 00
Step 2: LT from Major St.
4
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
1. 00
310
1250
1. 00
1250
0.96
0.95
1. 00
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
11
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
1. 00
0.95
1. 00
0.95
1. 00
1. 00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.95
0.96
0.83
739
382
1. 00
0.96
365
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
11
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvrnnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
2-~
L(>G \,EM
~ <) f)__C-.-...,~ --"
,'t ~'if- Pl_.
>"", ,,.,, -,-,--"
~, cl(,it; 3. -
, ...
e
e
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.95
1. 00
0.95
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free st.
1. 00
1. 00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1. 00
0.95
0.96
0.83
739
382
1. 00
0.96
365
Results for Two-stage process:
a
y
C t
365
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
Volume (vph)
Movement Capacity (vph)
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
\i~
12
365
99
727
, it
\...,..:,
~,). ~f\Y
. ..."~;i(O
'/ - \......
,,,.w>,,,~,""'-".
657
e e
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
C sep 365 727
Volume 12 99
Delay
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
C sh 657
SUM C sep
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config LT LR
v (vph) 54 111
C(m) (vph) 1250 657
vlc 0.04 0.17
95% queue length 0.14 0.60
Control Delay 8.0 11. 6
LOS A B
Approach Delay 11. 6
Approach LOS B
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
p (oj)
v (il) ,
v(i2) ,
s (il) ,
s (i2) ,
P*(oj)
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
Volume for
Volume for
Saturation
Saturation
stream 2 or 5
stream 3 or 6
flow rate for
flow rate for
stream
stream
Movement 2 Movement 5
0.96 1. 00
323
0
2 or 5 1700
3 or 6 1700
0.95
8.0
1
0.4
lanes
L' CJ"~' ll- ..:::. f' J~
. .~.,-,,; L.vl
#~..-l () C1-: 7:^"",
w t ,:;;r-
( ',-..it
~---",. '. ".-- --....--
'-'2--/
HCS2000: UtltgnaliZed Intersections Relllte 4.1d
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: gar
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed: 11/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: weekend peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 with project
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
45
0.82
54
2
Undivided
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound
2 3
T R
285
0.82
347
Westbound
4 5 6
L T R
22 275 5
0.90 0.90 0.90
24 305 5
2
/
0 1 0
LTR
No
Southbound
10 11 12
L T R
10 14 80
0.80 0.80 0.80
12 17 99
4 0 4
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
12
0.82
14
o 1
LTR
No
o
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Northbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes 0
Configuration
10
0.80
12
o
14
0.80
17
o
o
17
0.80
21
o
No
1
LTR
o
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config LTR LTR LTR LTR
v (vph) 54 24 50 128
C(m) (vph) 1250 1198 342 524
v/c 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.24
95% queue length 0.14 0.06 0.51 0.95
Control Delay 8.0 8.1 17.3 14.1
LOS A A C B
Approach Delay 17.3 14.1
Approach LOS C B
~?--
=! .ff-.
~"L-1)
e
e
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d
Geralyn Reinart, P.E.
1319 Dexter Ave. North, #103
Seattle, WA. 98109
Phone: (206) 285-9035
E-Mail:
Fax:
(206) 285-6345
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: gar
Agency/Co. :
Date Performed: 11/10/2004
Analysis Time Period: weekend peak hour
Intersection: Paradise Bay Road/Breaker Lane
Jurisdiction: Jefferson County
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010 with project
Project ID: Ludlow Cove
East/West Street: Paradise Bay Road
North/South Street: Breaker Lane
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 45 285 12 22 275 5
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.90 0.90 0.90
Peak-15 Minute Volume 14 87 4 6 76 1
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 347 14 24 305 5
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2
Median Type/storage Undivided /
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 10 14 17 10 14 80
Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Peak-15 Minute Volume 3 4 5 3 4 25
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 17 21 12 17 99
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No /
RT Channelized?
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Flow (ped/hr)
o
o
"") _ 0.,
o
o
, ~"p'. '-r'--' \'j
, i l~, "., ,~ ~ r'-"~\;
# '-9'O~ ,_.H
'""'. .......'."...-. ",."..tn-" '-".-:._~_._'
('~;";".' (;~f-L ,J',
Movements
Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments
13 14 15 16
e
e
12.0
4.0
o
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/sec)
Percent Blockage
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
12.0
4.0
o
Prog.
Flow
vph
Upstream Signal Data
Sat Arrival Green Cycle
Flow Type Time Length
vph sec sec
Prog.
Speed
mph
Distance
to Signal
feet
S2 Left-Turn
Through
S5 Left-Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Movement 2 Movement 5
347 305
14 5
1700 1700
1700 1700
1 1
Worksheet 4-Critical. Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4
L L
t(c,base) 4.1 4.1
t(c,hv) 1. 00 1. 00
P(hv) 2 2
t (c, g)
Grade/100
t(3,lt) 0.00 0.00
t (c, T) : I-stage 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00
t (c) I-stage 4.1 4.1
2-stage
Follow-Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4
L L
t (f, base) 2.20 2.20
t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90
P(HV) 2 2
t (f) 2.2 2.2
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
0 0 0 4 0 4
0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1. 00 1. 00 0.00 1. 00 1. 00 0.00
7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 0 4 0 4
3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation I-Queue
Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
LU;Y- 'TE~l Movement 2
""' ^ .... V(t) V(l,prot)
:4 ~u
Page ltJ___OC"~2:_ \ 0
Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog
e e
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g(ql)
g(q2)
g (q)
Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2
V(t) V(l,prot)
Movement 5
V (t) V ( 1, prot)
alpha
beta
Travel t~me, t(a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
P (2)
P (5)
p(dom)
p(subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
0.000
0.000
Proportion
unblocked
for minor
movements, p(x)
(1 )
Single-stage
Process
(2) (3)
Two-Stage Process
Stage I Stage II
p (1)
P (4)
P (7)
P (8)
P (9)
p(10)
P (11)
p(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single-Stage Process
Movement
1
L
4
L
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
V C,x
s
Px
V c,u,x
310
361
876
820
354
837
825
308
C r,x
C plat,x
~~___ ''..) '" ~'. t:~ (, ',/ %
7
8
10
c...;)tL.2-.........._..,.c.
..Ys-., ".....-..-.
11
Two-Stage Process
'/ ..... \ \
~
e e
Stage1 Stage2 Stage1 Stage2 Stage1 Stage2 Stage1 Stage2
V(c,X)
s
P(x)
V(c,u,x)
1500
1500
1500
1500
C(r,x)
C(plat,x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
step 1: RT from Minor St.
9
12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
354
694
1. 00
694
0.97
308
727
1. 00
727
0.86
Step 2: LT from Major St.
4
1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free st.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free st.
361
1198
1. 00
1198
0.98
0.98
310
1250
1. 00
1250
0.96
0.95
step 3: TH from Minor st.
8
11
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
820
312
1. 00
0.92
288
0.94
825
310
1. 00
0.92
286
0.94
Step 4: LT from Minor st.
7
10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
876
272
1. 00
0.87
0.90
0.78
211
837
284
1. 00
0.87
0.90
0.87
247
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor st.
8
11
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
1...._)(..., "--E-"I'
~-~ ..; 1 I ...~ :V~
#,~,_ 9:0 ~
p,J::lq" ..~" '_.._......-f ---
..~ \" t" ''i,
'- ~"-, ."--.-.".. .....,. ---, "'"'.....--~
~
L-\"2-
e
e
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
820
312
1. 00
0.92
288
825
310
1. 00
0.92
286
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St.
288
0.94
286
0.94
Step 4: LT from Minor st.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
876
272
1. 00
0.87
0.90
0.78
211
837
284
1. 00
0.87
0.90
0.87
247
Results for Two-stage process:
a
y
C t
211
247
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7
L
8
T
9
R
10
L
11
T
12
R
Volume (vph)
Movement Capacity (vph)
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
12 17
211 288
342
'-) ~ \ ::;,;
21 12 17
69LLOGh"iEM 286
#_ ;JJJ '}, -=:
Page -~'-..2_ of___
99
727
e e
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
C sep 211 288 694 247 286 727
Volume 12 17 21 12 17 99
Delay
Q sep'
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
C sh 342 524
SUM C sep
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config LTR LTR LTR LTR
v (vph) 54 24 50 128
C (m) (vph) 1250 1198 342 524
vlc 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.24
95% queue length 0.14 0.06 0.51 0.95
Control Delay 8.0 8.1 17.3 14.1
LOS A A C B
Approach Delay 17.3 14.1
Approach LOS C B
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Movement 2 Movement 5
p(oj) 0.96 0.98
v (il) , Volume for stream 2 or 5 347 305
v (i2 ) , Volume for stream 3 or 6 14 5
s (il) , Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 1700
s (i2 ) , Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 1700
P*(oj) 0.95 0.98
d(M,LT) , Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.0 8.1
N, Number of major street through lanes 1 1
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.4 0.2
"-1-1\ "
i"" (:. I.. i ;".\ \j i
......U'-oJ' J, ,-
.11\,'.'...~O t') ._._."
--~71-"'f-
PaCl8 ~~..~\._. .".-
,-" ~-
L- \Lt