Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-06 Impact Stmt/TIA StmtIMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RUTHERFORD CROSSING Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Parcels 43- ((A)) -98, 43- ((A)) -99 43 -((A)) -100 136.87± Acres September 5, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Current Owners: Contact Person: Rutherford Farm, LLC Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger John S. Scully, IV John B. Schroth Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662 -4185 Greenway Engineering 1 September 5, 2006 S Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7,2006 INTRODUCTION RUTHERFORD CROSSING REZONING This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 136.87± acre subject site owned by Rutherford Farm, LLC, Virginia Apple Storage, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth. The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). Norfolk Southern and Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Martinsburg Pike, which traverse the subject site. The Applicants propose to reconfigure the existing zoning boundaries of the B -2 Business General District, the B -3 Industrial Transition District and the M -1 Light Industrial District within the Rutherford Crossing site to create an additional 31.0± acres of B -2 Business General District, while reducing the existing M -1 Light Industrial District acreage by 8.55± acres and eliminating the 22.45± acres of B -3 Industrial Transition District. The proposed revisions to the existing zoning district boundaries are intended to create a major retail center within the B -2 Business General District portion of the subject site that is envisioned to include a home improvement superstore, a major retail discount store, specialty retail stores, sit -down and fast food restaurants, drive -in banking and office land use. Basic information Location: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 43- ((A)) -98, 43- ((A)) -99 43 -((A)) -100 Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Build Out B2 District 28.64± acres B3 District 22.45± acres M1 District 85.78± acres 136.87± acres Unimproved and Residential Major Retail Center, Office and Light Industrial B2 District 59.64± acres Ml District 77.23± acres 136.87± acres 1.4 million square feet maximum 2 Greenway Engineering COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The commercial and industrial land uses proposed for this rezoning application are in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2003 Northeast Land Use Plan. This plan recommends commercial and industrial development as future land use within the Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access September 5, 2006 1 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The 136.871 acre subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). The subject site has approximately 2,000 feet of road frontage along Martinsburg Pike and the proximity of the subject site to Interstate 81Exit 317 enables vehicular traffic to quickly access the interstate for northbound and southbound travel. The location of the Norfolk Southern and Winchester and Westem Railroads within the subject site increases opportunities for rail service for the northern portion of the site. A Public Improvement Plan has been prepared to reflect the proffered road improvements planned during the original rezoning for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Rezoning Application #07 -01). This Public Improvements Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Applicants are currently working with VDOT to obtain the necessary land use permits to construct these planned improvements. Floodplains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP Map #510063- 0105B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C area outside the 100 -year floodplain. Approximately 28.3 acres located in the northern portion of the site is identified as floodplain. The proposed Master Development Plan for Rutherford Crossing limits development within the floodplain area to stormwater management, utilities and future road construction. Disturbance within the floodplain area will comply with all applicable state and local permitting requirements following Master Development Plan approval. 3 Greenway Engineering Wetlands September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 A wetlands delineation study was prepared for the 136.87± acre site by Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. on July 30, 2002 with revisions dated November 15, 2002. The results of this study indicated that no wetlands exist on the subject site. The soil types on the property are well drained with predominantly moderately sloping terrain that do not retain wetland characteristics. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineering issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02 -B0133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and/or wetlands exist on the subject site. Steep Slopes There are no areas of steep slopes within the 136.87± acre site. All slopes within the subject site are gradual ranging from 2 -7% slopes with well- drained soils into Hiatt Run. Soil Types The 136.87± acre subject site contains eight soil types as evident from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, sheet number 24, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the Frederick County GIS Database. These soil types are as follows: 5B -Carbo Silt Loam 2 7% slope 6C -Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam, very rocky 2 15% slope 7C -Carbo Oaklet, rock outcrop complex 2 —15% slope 14B- Fredrick Poplimento Loams 2 —7% slope 16B- Fredrick Poplimento Loams, very rocky 2 —7% slope 16C- Fredrick Poplimento Loams, very rocky 7 —15% slope 17C- Fredrick Poplimento, rock outcrop complex 2 —15% slope 32B- Oaklet Silt Loam, 2 —7% slope Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Fredrick County identifies soil types 5B -Carbo Silt Loam, 14B- Fredrick Poplimento Loam, and 32B Oaklet Silt Loam as prime agricultural soils. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 4 Greenway Engineering B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned M2, General Industrial District Zoned M1, Light Industrial District Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Zoned RA, Rural Areas District South: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District MI, Light Industrial District East: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District RA, Rural Area District West: Zoned B2, Business General District B3, Industrial Transition District MI, Light Industrial District RP, Residential Performance District RA, Rural Areas District C. TRANSPORTATION September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The subject site was originally zoned M1, light Industrial District B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, Business General District as a component of Rezoning Application #07 -01. A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) was submitted and approved with the original rezoning application. The original TIA recommended improvements to the Martinsburg Pike (Rte 11 North) corridor and recommended traffic signalization at the Interstate 81 southbound on and off ramps. Subsequent to the approval of the original rezoning application, Greenway Engineering prepared a Public Improvement Plan for the proffered improvements to the Martinsburg Pike corridor, which has been approved by VDOT. The Applicants are currently working with VDOT to obtain the permits necessary to begin construction of these improvements. The proposed rezoning application calls for a modification to the existing zoning districts that will convert 22.45± acres of B3, Industrial Transition District and 8.55± acres of M1, Light Industrial District to B2, Business General District. A new traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared to reflect this conversion, which is included with this rezoning application. 5 Use: Heavy Commercial Warehouse Use: FEMA Office Use: Residential Use: Commercial Nursery Residential Use: Residential Use: Trucking Residential Use: Residential Use:Residential& Agriculture Use: Commercial Use: Commercial Use: Commercial Rail Use: Residential Use: Residential Church Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the rezoning application by PHR &A dated September 7, 2006. The TIA models the 136.87± acre subject site at three site driveway intersection points on Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and at the intersections of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), Red Bud Road (Route 661) and Welltown Road (Route 661) with Martinsburg Pike, as well as the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound and southbound on and off ramps. The TIA provides analysis for two alternative conditions associated with the development of this site. The first condition assumes this development of a major retail center and industrial land use within the proposed M1, Light Industrial District and B2, Business General District acreages. The second condition assumes the development of a major retail center, office and industrial land uses, within the existing MI, Light Industrial District, B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, General Business District acreages. The TIA provides information for both alternative conditions including existing lane geometry and levels of service at the identified intersections for AM and PM peak hour traffic, background traffic impacts associated with the FEMA Office site, the phase one buildout of Stephenson Village, the phase one buildout of the Semples Property, and the buildout of the Clearbrook Properties, as well as a traffic growth rate of 5% per year compounded annually for all identified street systems. The TIA demonstrates a reduction in average daily traffic volume of approximately 2,200 vehicle trips for the proposed Rutherford Crossing development. The current by -right zoning is projected to generate 28,859 ADT, while the proposed zoning is projected to generate 26;652 ADT. The background lane geometry and levels of service demonstrate failing levels of service at the Martinsburg Pike/Redbud Run/Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on ramp intersection, at the Martinsburg Pike /Old Charles Town Road intersection, at the Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road intersection, and at the Martinsburg Pike/Interstate 81 Exit 317 southbound on and off ramps intersection. The TIA provides for suggested improvements that bring the identified intersections to acceptable levels of service or improve the levels of service experienced by background traffic impacts. The Applicants have utilized the information in the TIA to develop the Transportation Enhancements Section of the proposed Proffer Statement. The following improvements to the regional transportation system are proffered for the Rutherford Crossing development: Widening of Martinsburg Pike to establish dual northbound and southbound travel lanes Construction of dual left turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike into the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) Construction of a third southbound lane on Martinsburg Pike from the primary site entrance to the existing Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound turn lane Construction of dual left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane for the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) Construction of a two entrances that provide for right in/right -out movement only Fully funded traffic signalization at the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) 6 Grcenway Engineering Fully funded traffic signalization at the Martinsburg Pike /Interstate 81 Exit 317 southbound on and off ramp intersection Fully funded traffic signalization at the Martinsburg Pike/Redbud Run/Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on ramp intersection Provision of a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals along Martinsburg Pike between the primary site entrance and Crown Lane Provision of right of way along Martinsburg Pike Provision of right of way along Interstate 81 Construction of the internal major collector road to provide connectivity and access to the FEMA Office site. Monetary contribution of $250,000.00 towards off -site regional transportation improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor that can be utilized as matching funds for federal or state grants. The transportation enhancements proffered by the Applicants provides for entrances into Rutherford Crossing from Martinsburg Pike that function at acceptable levels of service, and provides for improvements to the regional transportation system that significantly improve failing levels of service from background traffic impacts to acceptable levels of service and improved levels of service. Therefore, the Rutherford Crossing development mitigates transportation impacts associated with the proposed on -site development and provides solutions to assist in the mitigation of background traffic impacts to the regional transportation system. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The 136.87± -acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is a newly constructed 8" sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad that traverses the subject property. A regional pump station has been designed for the Rutherford Crossing development with a design capacity of 120,000 gpd that will serve the entire project. The design and installation of the regional pump station is paid for by the Applicants and will be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Based on comparable discharge patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that 500 gallons /day per acre is a reasonable projection for estimating the sewer impact for commercial and industrial development. The following information projects the impact for public sewer on the subject site: Q 500 gallons /day /acre Q 500 gpd x 136.87± acres Q 68,435 gpd 7 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The proposed commercial center is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP). This projection is conservative, as approximately 28 acres of the subject site is located within floodplain area, which will not have structural development. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 million gallons per day, of which approximately 6.4 is currently being utilized. The total build -out of the proffered commercial land uses would require approximately 3.4% of the available capacity at the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant; therefore, adequate capacity is available for this development. E. WATER SUPPLY The 136.87± acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing 10" water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad that traverses the subject site. All land uses located within the Rutherford Crossing development will be connected to the public water system. The design and installation of the water system infrastructure will meet FCSA standards, will be paid for by the Applicants and will be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Based on existing water consumption patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that a 1,000 gallons /day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact projection for commercial and industrial development. The following information projects the impact for public water consumption on the subject site: Q 1,000 gallons /day /acre Q 1,000gpd X 136.87± acres Q 136,870 gpd The Rutherford Crossing development will utilize an estimated 136,870 gallons of water per day. This projection is conservative, as approximately 28 acres of the subject site is located within floodplain area, which will not have structural development. The Northern Water Treatment Plant currently provides 2.0 MGD of potable water from the Global Chemstone Quarry as one of the water sources contributing to the new 20 -inch water main. The projected water usage for the build -out of the proffered commercial land uses would require approximately 6.8% percent of the available water source; therefore, adequate capacity is available for this development. 8 Greenway Engineering F. DRAINAGE September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The 136.87± subject site gently slopes to the northeast, which directs stormwater into Hiatt Run that flows from the northern boundary to the east and off site. Greenway Engineering prepared a peak flow quantity drainage analysis dated May 22, 2006 that is included as information with the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application. The peak flow quantity analysis evaluated the entire project site assuming an 80% impervious condition for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm events. The results of this study indicate that the increase in drainage based on post development build out conditions can be accommodated by the Hiatt Run channel. Additionally, the study results indicate that downstream flows will not be significantly impacted for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 year storm events, as the increased runoff does not raise the elevation in the channel for all storm events. Stormwater will be directed to the adequate channel through storm pipes and lined open channels to protect groundwater due to the karst geology within this area of the County. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual commercial consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4` edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on a maximum development of 1,400,000 square -feet of land use that has been proffered by the Applicants: AAV 5.4 cu. yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial AAV 5.4 cu. yd. x 1,400 (1,000 sq. ft.) AAV 7,560 cu. yd. at build -out, or 5,292 tons /yr at build -out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The maximum development of Rutherford Crossing will generate approximately 5,292 tons of solid waste annually on average. This represents a 2.6% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. Solid waste produced by Rutherford Crossing will be routed to the Regional Landfill by a commercial waste hauler; therefore, the County will receive tipping fees associated with this land use to mitigate this impact. Additionally, the Applicants' proffer statement provides for a coordinated recycling program with the County for all industrial projects within Rutherford Crossing to reduce the projected solid waste impacts to the Regional Landfill. The Regional Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste impacts associated with this proposal, and the Rutherford Crossing development will generate revenue for the landfill to further mitigate these impacts. 9 Greenway Engineering H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Historic Landmark Commission September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 Rutherford's Farm #34 -727 is identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey as a potentially significant property. All that remains of the former house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Martinsburg Pike up to the site of the former house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Martinsburg Pike. Landmark records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 2. Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3. Civil War Battlefields The National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies the entire subject site as being with the Second Winchester Battlefield area; however, the study does not identify the subject site as being located within core battlefield area, while the Frederick County GIS database identifies the subject site within the defined area of Stephenson's Depot. The National Park Service Study identifies the subject site as having both retained integrity and lost integrity. The portion of the site identified as retained integrity is currently zoned for both commercial and industrial development. The Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed Rezoning Application #07 -01 on July 17, 2001. The Applicants incorporated a Historic Resource section into the original proffer statement to provide for three interpretative signs. The proposed proffer statement provides for the three interpretative signs and also provides for landscaping and picnic tables to enhance the interpretative sign viewing area. I. COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACTS The Rutherford Crossing development provides a net positive fiscal impact in revenue to the County. Impacts to emergency services were recognized during the consideration of Rezoning Application #07 -01 and the Applicants provided a $10,000.00 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services in the original proffer statement. A $10,000.00 payment was made to the Frederick County Planning Department on July 20, 2006 to satisfy the proffered condition. Therefore, the monetary contribution section has been eliminated from the proposed proffer statement as this condition has been satisfied. No additional impacts to community services are anticipated for this rezoning proposal. 10 E L cro vvA 1 1 i m c •t1 D D IUTHERFORD CROSSING AERIAL OVERVIEW quals 700 Feet .3 4 2" 2 4 4 .p*.11 ,i A ir )r 1'';;, Iii VCit 4 EWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT DERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROJECT \D 2795RF \DEMNED DW E Rutherford Crossing Aerial Overview r onoulad 111 11, Ellgineetv Sl ryoyorii t L 16l Windy Hifi Inn« lfinche$1.0r, Arainie 22882 Telephone MO 862 4188 FAX s 40-722 -9528 144, groansnlyeng corn •90 GREENWAY ENGINEERING O O co C1 O O O O 0 O 1 i RUTHERFORD CROSSING LOCATION AND ZONING MAP STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA "E: 2006 -11 -08 PROJECT ID: 2795RFIDESIGNED BY: DWE kLE: 1 Inch equals 700 Feet Rutherford Crossing N Location and Zoning Map 'melted Ul r 4Fr Stlgiueters 31arveyors 151 Whidy Hill lure Wirishestar, Vtrginie 22462 Teltpho 640 -662_ -4185 FAX 540 722 -9528 n green wnyeng. cram GREENWAY ENGINEERII RUTHERFORD CROSSING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DESIGNED BY: DWE DATE: 2006-11-08 PROJECT ID: 2795RF SCALE: 1 Inch equals 700 Feet Rutherford Crossing Environmental Features Map 2 -7 c.-4. y- 6 7 Th Foundad it7f Englunier4 rye yors 151 Windy 1411 lane Winchn$ter Virginia 22452 Telephone C40 -me-4165 FAX 540-722-OW VIM greemeiyong•eare GREENWAY ENO!! O O W cn O O 1 i TI CD CD CD 01 GO D O m W m m O O r O JJ I r H oo D r N m O 0 0 H m J O rn m m m 0 n 3 m 0 A z 0 H r- cr) O r N N m p C O r O U) 01 r m 0 01 m c7 m z r O 0 m 11 VF LLTOWN R co 1 r 1 rn 4' SOILS MAP STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 2006 -11 -08 (PROJECT ID: 2795RF DESIGNED BY: DWE I SCALE: 1 Inch equals 700 Feet Rutherford Crossing Soils Map RUTHERFORD CROSSING GREENWAY ENG 181 Windy Hill lane Winchester, Virginia 226D2 Telephone 640 -662 -4186 FAX 540- 722 -8528 www.greenwayeng.com uwWatl u 97f Engineers Surveyors RUTHERFORD CROSSING IISTORIC FEATURES MAP EDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 08 (PROJECT ID: 2795RFIDESIGNED BY: DVVE equals NC) Feet 1 =WALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Rutherford Crossing Historic Features Map ~kW in /R? Exigti48er8 3tirveyoex 151 Windy Hill tune Wthellester. Virginia 22462 Telephoto.: 64© -962. -4195 FAX 540-- 722 -9529 www,grnnnwngeng.aom GREENWAY ENGINEERING Ipplettit. wu A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing Frederick County, Virginia NV Retail 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22102 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engneers. Surveyors. Planners. Lcndsccpe Architects. PLJR-n Located in: Prepared for: Prepared by: 300 Foxcroft Avenue. Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304,264,2711 F 304.264.3671 September 7, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this report to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing to be located along Route 11, northwest of the intersection of the Route 11 /I -81 northbound on ramp, in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR +A has provided analysis for two alternative conditions: Scenario A assumes the build -out of the proposed development to include 215,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 187,147 square feet of specialty retail, 4,500 square foot fast -food restaurant with drive -thru, a 4,800 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,000 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant and a 4,100 square foot bank. Scenario B assumes the build -out of the "approved" by -right development to include 325,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 245,842 square feet of office, a 4,500 square foot fast -food restaurant with drive -thru, a 4,800 square foot fast -food restaurant with drive -thru, four (4) 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurants, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 4,100 square foot bank and 4,500 square feet of convenience mart with pumps. Access is to be provided via three (3) site driveways along the west side of Route 11, of which two secondary site driveways will be right in/out. PHR +A has performed traffic analyses for existing, 2010 background (without development) and 2010 build -out (with development) conditions. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Rutherford Crossing development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the proposed development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford Crossing, Distribution and assignment of Rutherford Crossing generated trips onto the completed road network, Analysis of capacity and level of service with the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS for existing and future conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 1 r Figure 1 Vicinity Map Rutherford Crossing in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11 /Welltown Road, Route 11/1-81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ I -81 northbound off ramp, Route 11 /I -81 northbound on ramp/Redbud Road and Route 11 /Old Charlestown Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 10 Figure 2 shows the ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 3 No Scale J o 3 p 9� f! o r a al' a z 0 8 (17) 1 53 793) Ch ri To µi Roa AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Average Dlifarips` P 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 4 No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS =B(B) C pl tar r 0 Unsignalized Intersection y W 3 n two 3 J T pc J Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) Unsignalized Intersection F Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and LOS A Tra fie Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 5 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to establish the 2010 base conditions, PHR +A increased the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) using a conservative growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Note: Access is to be provided for FEMA and the Lumber Yard via the proposed site driveways serving Rutherford Crossing. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossins' September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 6 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Clearbrook Properties 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Other Developments 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 SF 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village 210 Single Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summar Access to be provided via the proposed Rutherford Crossing site driveway Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 7 No Scale SITE C a v o S B i IL cA 0°S X99 47 I h S, Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Averagejl)aity�Tr•.ips- P Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 8 Signalized Intersection LOS E(F) -d d Signalized Intersection f LOS =C(C) e Signalized I tersection LOS =13(13) r_ Iwo r 0 ten 0 Unsignalized Intersection �'Slgnalized; "Suggested Inter4ction1- hnpr °vmnenta E8 2 Leff LOS E(E) wn -I Len,tRigln Signalized' Intersection LOS= C(C) SITE C "Suggested Improvements" Signalizatlon e w ID terse S i e.� 412 Sh r o L ei Unsignalized Intersection F(F)+ Tou7 Ro Signalized. Inte section LOS C(C) `c z Intersection' "Suggested Improvements" Signalization NB- I Right C(C) No Scale "Suggested Improvements" Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Free -Flow Movement 4 r PHRA Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and LOS A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 9 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT, 130 Industrial Park 325,000 SF 210 46 256 61 231 292 2,360 710 Office 245,842 SF 339 46 385 60 294 354 2,667 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,800 SF 130 125 255 86 80 166 2,381 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5.500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 1-1-7 Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive -in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 853 Conven. Mart w \pumps 4,500 SF 103 103 205 136 136 273 3,805 Total Trips 1.255 719 1.974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total AD,I, 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7.115 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 57 139 89 228 207 264 471 8,044 932 H -T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 11-T Restaurant 4,800 SF 29 27 55 32 20 52 610 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive -in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 Total Trips 725 485 1.210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Per Table 2a Total 725 485 1.210 1.031 1,165 2,197 26.652 Per Table 2b Total 1.255 719 1,974 1,170 1.507 2,677 28.859 Proposed versus "Approved" By-Right -530 -234 -764 -138 -342 -480 -2207 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRIP GENERATION PHR +A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2a and Table 2b are provided below to summarize the trip generation associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Table 2c shows a comparison of the two (2) scenarios. P Table 2a Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary (Proposed Development) Table 2b Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario B: Trip Generation Summary "Approved" By right Development) Table 2c Trip Generation Comparison: Proposed versus "Approved" By -Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 10 2010 TRW DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel pattems for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Rutherford Crossing site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Rutherford Crossing assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were then added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 11 Trip Distribution Percentage A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 12 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A No Scale 0 01 -P 0 SITE F igure 7a Scenario A: Development- Generated Trip Assignment (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 13 T No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) AverageDail P F igure 7b Scenario B: Development- Generated Trip Assignment (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 14 No Scale 0 O SITE e_ s• a AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) AreirWn'auireTHATIS PHA Figure 8a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 15 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Averge: DiilYATrips P Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (By -right Development) A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 16 Signalized Intersection LOS F(E) Unsignalized Intersection GJ Signalized',; "Suggested Intersection l Improvanenn" EB I Len LOS =D(F)r WB I Lea, 1 Right NB I Lea 3 M 3 f 1� Signalised Intersection LOS D(E) Signalized Si, In ersection LOS C(C) sea ske SITE R tI "New I Intersection re, e 2 ka l �t t, "Suggested Improvements" Signalizasion Unsignalized Intersection L� No S ale F(F). 0w11 R oad Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) r' Signalized Intersection LOS CD) "Suggested Im prosemm[s" Signalization WB -1 Left NB- 1 Right Suggested Improvements" 5 gnalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Free -Flow Movement P Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 17 Signalized Intersection LOS F(F) a Signalized Intersection f $�Gl LOS =C(D) f Signalized ntersection LOS C(C) Intersection" Unsignalized Intersection Internee Unsignalized Intersection Signalized'' "Suggested Intersection- Improvements" ER- 2 Len LOS= Eft wa- 1 Left, 1Right NB- I Left Signalized' Intersection LOS SITE "Suggested Signall atoo Unsignalized Intersection 45) 11 4 F(F)* Signalized. Intersection LOS C(D) "Suggested Improvements" Signalization WB I Left NB- 1 Right ,`:,�Signalizeda Antersection 'LOS C(D) 0 Road No S ale "Suggested Improvements" Signnlization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ==Denotes Free -Flow Movement R Fi gure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 18 No. Intersection Direction Suggested Improvements (Scenarios A B) Levels of Service Scenario A Scenario B w/o Improvements w/ Improvements w/o Improvements w/ Improvements I Route II/1-81 SB ramps Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS D(E) LOS F(F) LOS D(E) 2 Route 11 /1 -81 NB Off ramp Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LOS C(D) LOS C(D) 3 Route 11 /Redbud Road/NB On ramp Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(D) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) 4 Route 11 /Charlestown Roac Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound N/A I left hum lane I right tum lane Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(C) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) 5 Route 11 /Welhown Road Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 2 left tum lane I left, 1 right Nm lone 1 left mm LOS F(F) LOS D(F) LOS F(F) LOS E(F) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONCLUSION Assuming the roadway configurations shown in Figures 9a and 9b for Scenarios A and B, respectively, the proposed signalized intersection of Site Driveway #2 /Route 11 will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Although some of the off -site intersections will operate with levels of service below "C the proposed "suggested improvements" of signalization/synchronization of the Route 11 /I- 81 interchange intersections would significantly improve levels of service as well as traffic flow through this Route 11 corridor. PHR +A has provided Table 3 to summarize the benefits of the "suggested improvements" shown on Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. It is to be noted that the impacts of the proposed development (Scenario A) would be less than that of the "approved" by -right development (Scenario B) during 2010 build -out conditions. P Table 3 Summary of Suggested Improvements LOS X(X1= LOS A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 19 HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 490 68 820 923 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 516 72 863 972 Lane Group Capacity, c 903 416 2026 2026 v/c Ratio, X 0.57 0.17 0.43 0.48 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.27 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 26.7 23.7 9.6 10.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 27.6 23.9 9.8 10.2 Lane Group LOS C C A B Approach Delay 27.2 9.8 10.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS C A B Intersection Delay 14.2 X 0.51 Intersection LOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 915(2006 11'.37 AM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 665 141 968 822 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nrn Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 700 148 1019 865 Lane Group Capacity, c 903 416 2026 2026 v/c Ratio, X 0.78 0.36 0.50 0.43 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.27 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 28.6 25.0 10.2 9.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 4.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 32.9 25.5 10.4 9.8 Lane Group LOS C C 8 A Approach Delay 31.6 10.4 9.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS I C 8 A Intersection Delay 16.8 I X 0.59 Intersection LOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 232 17 239 57 20 25 163 1091 75 101 1593 157 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 17.0 G= G= G= 5.0 G= 48,0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 262 252 107 172 1148 79 106 1677 165 Lane Group Capacity, c 330 567 179 166 1741 777 233 1741 777 v/c Ratio, X 0.79 0.44 0.60 1.04 0.66 0.10 0.45 0.96 0.21 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.37 0.18 0.62 0.51 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.51 Uniform Delay, d 33.2 22.7 35.9 25.3 17.4 12.3 11.1 22.6 13.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.34 0.11 0.19 0.50 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.47 0,11 Incremental Delay, d 12.6 0.6 5.4 79.7 0.9 0.1 1.4 13.9 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 45.7 23.2 41.3 105.0 18.4 12.3 12.5 36.5 13.2 Lane Group LOS D C D F 8 8 8 D 8 Approach Delay 34.7 41.3 28 7 33.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS C I D C C Intersection Delay 32.0 X 0.98 0 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 274 25 274 48 29 28 223 1260 72 55 1425 210 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 17.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 41.0 G= G= y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 314 288 111 235 1326 76 58 1500 221 Lane Group Capacity, c 358 688 207 247 1986 887 142 1662 742 v/c Ratio, X 0.88 0.42 0.54 0.95 0.67 0.09 0.41 0.90 0.30 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.45 0.20 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay, d 29.1 16.0 30.5 22.6 12.4 8.0 14.2 20.2 13.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 0.11 0.14 0.46 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.42 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 21.0 0.4 2.7 43.9 0.9 0.0 1.9 7.3 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 50.1 16.4 33.2 66.4 13.3 8.1 16.1 27.5 13.5 Lane Group LOS D 8 C E 8 A 8 C 8 Approach Delay 34.0 33.2 20 7 25.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Delay 25.0 X a98 Intersection LOS C I 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Cond /itons Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 228 53 9 323 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 0 240 55 9 340 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 153 8 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 161 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh /h) 9 169 C (m) (veh /h) 1249 449 v/c 0.01 0.38 95% queue length 0.02 1.73 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.9 17.8 LOS A C Approach Delay (s /veh) 17.8 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 452 139 14 312 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 475 146 14 328 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 93 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 97 0 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(veh /h) 14 114 C (m) (veh /h) 945 320 v/c 0.01 0.36 95% queue length 0.05 1.57 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.9 22.3 LOS A C Approach Delay (s /veh) 22.3 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd /1 -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 292 590 6 5 902 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF as 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 307 621 6 5 949 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 21 15 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 22 15 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 307 5 48 C (m) (veh /h) 701 931 0 v/c 0.44 0.01 95% queue length 2.24 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.1 8.9 LOS B A F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 474 610 25 19 801 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 498 642 26 20 843 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 21 22 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 22 23 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 498 20 57 C (m) (veh /h) 770 898 0 v/c 0.65 0.02 95% queue length 4.81 0.07 Control Delay (s /veh) 17.8 9.1 LOS C A F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing EastiWest Street: 1 -81 SB Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 807 115 1298 Peak -Hour Factbr, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 849 0 121 1366 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 13 0 553 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 13 0 582 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) 121 13 582 C (m) (veh/h) 766 100 385 v/c 0.16 0.13 1.51 95% queue length 0.56 0.43 31.54 Control Delay (s /veh) 10.6 46.3 269.5 LOS B E F Approach Delay (s /veh) 264.7 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: I -81 S8 Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation. North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 955 131 1356 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1005 0 137 1427 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 13 0 334 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 13 0 351 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) 137 13 351 C (m) (veh /h) 667 83 367 v/c 0.21 046 0.96 95% queue length 0.77 0.53 10.52 Control Delay (s /veh) 11.8 56.3 70.7 LOS 8 F F Approach Delay (s /veh) 70.2 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM HCSi- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour I Route 11 1 -81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 596 138 1211 1346 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= 60.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 627 145 1275 1417 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 a 27 0.68 0.75 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.55 Uniform Delay, d 29.0 26.0 18.0 19.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.25 0.31 Incremental Delay, d 0.5 0.3 1.0 1.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 26.3 19.0 21.1 Lane Group LOS C C B C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 28.9 19.0 21.1 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 22.1 X 0.67 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:44 AM HCS +TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Route 11 8(1-81 Off NB Intersection Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 808 274 1482 1264 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= 60.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 131 1560 1331 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.74 0.25 0.83 0.71 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.55 Uniform Delay, d 31.6 25.8 20.8 18.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.30 0.11 0.37 0.27 Incremental Delay, d 2.5 0.2 a 3 1.3 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.2 26.0 24.1 19.8 Lane Group LOS C C C B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 33.1 24.1 19.8 Approach LOS C C B Intersection Delay 24.9 X 0.79 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 e Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst nalyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1464 91 123 2078 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time fo Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 19.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 48.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 319 306 107 208 1541 96 129 2187 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 267 513 81 176 1837 820 176 1837 820 v/c Ratio, X 1.19 0.60 1.32 1.18 0.84 0.12 0.73 1.19 0.25 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.33 0.21 0.66 0.53 0.53 0.66 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay, d 35.5 25.0 35.5 26.3 17.7 10.5 15.9 21.0 11.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.11 0.29 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 118.3 1.9 208.0 125.2 3.6 0.1 14.6 91.5 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 153.8 26.9 243.5 151.5 21.4 10.5 30.5 112.5 11.4 Lane Group LOS F C F F C 8 C F 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 91.6 243.5 35.5 100.2 Approach LOS F F D F Intersection Delay 78.7 X 1.35 c Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A I Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 1722 88 67 1918 255 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 65.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 1813 93 71 2019 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 270 551 87 203 1866 833 203 1866 833 v/c Ratio, X 1.42 0.44 1.28 1.40 0.97 0.11 0.35 1.08 0.32 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.36 0.22 0.67 0.54 0.54 0.67 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay, d 46.5 29.4 46.5 41.3 26.6 13.4 24.1 27.5 15.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 208.7 0.6 187.5 208.6 14.7 0.1 1.0 46.9 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 255.2 30.0 234.0 249.9 41.3 13.5 25.1 74.4 15.5 Lane Group LOS F C F F D B C E B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 167.3 234.0 67.2 66.2 Approach LOS F F E E Intersection Delay 82.2 X 1.99 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1464 91 123 2078 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 120 120 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru RT 04 Excl. Left Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 4.3 G= 4.0 G= 5.4 G= G= 9.4 G= 67.9 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 1150 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 297 22 306 60 21 26 208 1541 96 129 2187 201 Lane Group Capacity,c 415 148 332 64 85 278 141 2034 1046 141 2034 1180 v/c Ratio, X 0.72 0.15 0.92 0.94 0.25 0.09 1.48 0.76 0.09 0.91 1.08 0.17 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.12 0.08 0.22 0.04 0.05 0.18 0.08 0.59 0.68 0.08 0.59 0.77 Uniform Delay, d 48.4 49.1 44.1 55.2 52.8 39.2 528 17.5 6.3 52.4 23.5 a 6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.28 0.11 0.44 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.31 0.11 0.43 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.8 0.5 30.2 90.4 1.5 0.1 248.0 1.7 0.0 51.0 43.7 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 54.2 49.5 74.3 145.6 54.4 39.4 300.8 19.1 6.3 103.4 67.2 3.7 Lane Group LOS D D E F D D F B A F E A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 63.9 101.9 50.2 64.0 Approach LOS E F D E Intersection Delay 59.8 X 1.03 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiltons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TI-1 RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 1722 88 67 1918 255 To Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru RT 04 Excl. Left Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 4.4 G= 6.2 G= 5.7 G= G= 10.5 G= 64.2 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 115.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 351 32 245 51 31 29 285 1813 93 71 2019 268 Lane Group Capacity,c 482 187 380 66 90 297 157 1923 998 157 1923 1161 v/c Ratio, X 0.73 0.17 0.64 0.77 0.34 0.10 1.82 0.94 0.09 0.45 1.05 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.09 0.56 0.65 0.09 0.56 0.75 Uniform Delay, d 47.0 47.0 38.8 54.8 52.8 38.2 52.3 23.7 7.6 49.5 25.4 4.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.29 0.11 0.22 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.5 0.4 3.7 42.3 2.3 0.1 390.8 10.1 0.0 2.1 35.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 52.6 47.5 42.5 97.1 55.1 38.3 443.1 33.8 7.6 51.6 60.5 4.3 Lane Group LOS D D D F E D F C A D E A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 48.4 70.0 85.9 53.8 Approach LOS D E F D Intersection Delay 66.8 X 1.04 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07 /20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 322 150 65 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 338 157 68 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) 479 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 504 0 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 68 702 C (m) (veh /h) 1053 496 v/c 0.06 1.42 95% queue length 0.21 33.59 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.7 221.3 LOS A F Approach Delay (s /veh) 221.3 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All R ;ghts Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07 /20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 621 491 214 451 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 653 516 225 474 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 285 126 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 300 0 132 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh /h) 225 432 C (m) (veh /h) 587 69 v/c 0.38 6.26 95% queue length 1.79 48.70 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.9 2485 LOS 8 F Approach Delay (s /veh) 2485 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Fights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM HCSI-TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiifons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR T R L T Volume, V (vph) 479 189 322 150 65 449 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopp ng, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 54.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 703 339 158 68 473 Lane Group Capacity, c 825 642 1384 284 724 v/c Ratio, X a 85 a 53 0.11 0.24 0.65 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.49 0.35 0.90 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay, d 24.5 28.2 0.6 21.9 26.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.38 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.23 Incremental Delay, d 8.6 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 33.1 29.0 0.6 22.4 28.9 Lane Group LOS c C A C C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 33.1 20.0 28.1 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 27.8 X 0.76 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Nt 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR T R L T Volume, V (vph) 285 126 621 491 214 451 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 34.5 G= G= G= G= 7.0 G= 46.5 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 433 654 517 225 475 Lane Group Capacity, c 578 842 1338 240 968 v/c Ratio, X a 75 0.78 0.39 0.94 0.49 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.34 0.47 0.87 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay, d 28.9 22.4 1.3 29.5 14.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.30 0.33 0.11 0.45 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.4 4.6 0.2 41.2 0.4 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.3 27.0 1.5 70.7 15.1 Lane Group LOS C C A E B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 34.3 15.7 32.9 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 24.5 X 0.83 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07 /20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherfo d Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: NorthSouth Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 355 987 7 6 1321 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 373 1038 7 6 1390 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) 26 18 13 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 27 18 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Dela Queue Len•th, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (veh /h) 373 6 58 C (m) (veh /h) 473 644 0 Ic 0.79 0.01 95% queue length 7.13 0.03 Control Delay (s /veh) 3J5 10.6 LOS E B F pproach Delay (s /veh) pproach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst f 3 1-IRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07 /20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing EastiWest Street: Redbud Rd/L.81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 576 1149 30 23 1239 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 606 1209 31 24 1304 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 26 27 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 27 28 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 606 24 70 C (m) (veh /h) 511 541 0 v/c 1.19 0.04 95 °J queue length 22. 0.14 Control Delay (s /veh) 128.1 12.0 LOS F 8 F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 18 13 355 987 7 6 1321 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 60 374 1046 6 1391 Lane Group Capacity, c 248 463 2486 248 1723 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.81 0.42 0.02 0.81 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d 34.1 24.3 5.0 11.4 18.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.35 Incremental Delay, d 0.5 10.2 0.1 0.0 3.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.6 34.5 5.1 11.4 21.8 Lane Group LOS C C A 8 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM Approach Delay 34.6 12.8 21.8 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 17.6 X 0.82 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 27 15 576 1149 30 23 1239 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, h 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped /Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 a 2 a 2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 27.0 G= 38.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 1241 24 1304 Lane Group Capacity, c 249 596 2479 173 1455 v/c Ratio, X 0.29 1.02 0.50 0.14 0.90 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay, d 34.4 25.9 5.4 16.0 24.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.42 Incremental Delay, d 0.6 41.1 0.2 0.4 7.7 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 35.0 67.1 5.6 16.3 31.9 Lane Group LOS C E A B C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 35.0 25.8 31.6 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 28.3 X 0.94 c Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: 1 -81 S8 Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) 1118 222 1719 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1176 0 233 1809 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) 93 0 672 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 97 0 707 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (veh /h) 233 97 707 C (m) (veh /h) 573 30 274 /c 0.41 3.23 2.58 95% queue length 1.97 11.53 58.65 Control Delay (s /veh) 15.5 1281 750.1 LOS C F F pproach Delay (s /veh) 814.2 pproach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl ride, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHRA Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: 1 -81 SB Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1352 239 1834 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1423 0 251 1930 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 130 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 136 0 427 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RI Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (veh /h) 251 136 427 C (m) (veh /h) 459 0 249 h; 0.55 1.71 95% queue length 3.22 27.97 Control Delay (s /veh) 21.9 372. LOS C F F pproach Delay (s /veh) }>proach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM 4 1 MO Mil IN HCS -V" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements t1olume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Line Group of 0 N, c L 1 LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 93 0 672 1118 222 1719 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 r l N T 0 S 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e N 0 0 c9 0 W 0 c 0 y 0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 I Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I c 0 -z a) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 p Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P:d Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 Line Width L 0 c L a 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 a 2 a 2 Phasing L C N 6 L d 1 EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru Only 07 08 Timing G= 29.5 G= G= G= G= 14.5 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination MN EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 98 455 1177 234 1809 Lane Group Capacity, c U T I 0 0 N U 0 0 0 0 c 0 J 535 478 1414 262 1940 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.95 0.83 0.89 0.93 Total Green Ratio, g/C U m 0 0 re c 0 0 0 F 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.15 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 23.9 32.1 25.1 39.5 19.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.45 Incremental Delay, d 0.2 29.3 4.4 29.6 8.9 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t Control Delay 24.1 61.3 29.5 69.1 28.0 Lane Group LOS C E C E C Approach Delay 54.7 29.5 32.7 Approach LOS D C C Intersection Delay 34.9 X 0.94 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5,2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM I HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 8(1 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements 1 t Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 130 0 406 1352 239 1834 1 1 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A 1 I Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 I 1 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 1 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru Only 07 08 Timing G= 2T5 G= G= G= G= 14.3 G= 46.2 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 137 285 1423 252 1931 Lane Group Capacity, c 474 423 1592 246 2084 v/c Ratio, X x 0 0 0.29 0.67 0.89 1.02 0.93 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.46 0.14 0.61 Uniform Delay, d 28.6 32.3 24.7 42.8 17.8 Progression Factor, PF LL LL L 0 0 CO LL 0 O to 0 O 0) O LL 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.25 0.42 0.50 0.44 r Incremental Delay, d 0.3 4.2 6.9 63.8 7.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.9 36.5 31.6 106.7 25.6 Lane Group LOS C D C F C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM Approach Delay 34.0 31.6 34.9 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 33.6 X c 0.85 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 861 1590 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h 0 906 0 0 1673 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 1 C (m) (veh /h) 304 v/c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 16.9 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 16.9 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Ri 11 Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing EastNVest Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1149 1299 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1209 0 0 1367 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 5 C (m) (veh /h) 384 v/c 0.01 95% queue length 0.04 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.5 LOS B Approach Delay (s /veh) 14.5 Approach LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reser ed HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 11 15 151 849 1569 22 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 12 16 159 894 1652 23 Lane Group Capacity, c 668 581 371 2297 2738 1265 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 0.03 0.43 0.39 0.60 0.02 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.20 0.38 0.11 0.67 0.56 0.82 Uniform Delay, d 28.9 17.6 37.3 6.8 13.4 1.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.9 17.6 38.1 6.9 13.8 1.4 Lane Group LOS C 8 D A 8 A Approach Delay 22.5 11 6 13.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOS I O B B I Approach Intersection Delay 12.9 1 X 0.45 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 68 91 83 1081 1291 12 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 16.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 42.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 72 96 87 1138 1359 13 Lane Group Capacity, c 593 718 742 2373 2300 1094 v/c Ratio, X 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.01 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.18 0.47 0.22 0.69 0.47 0.71 Uniform Delay, d 31.1 13.7 28.0 6.5 17.7 3.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 31.2 13.7 28.0 6.7 18.1 3.8 Lane Group LOS C B C A 8 A Approach Delay 21.2 8.2 17.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM Approach LOS C A B Intersection Delay 13.8 I X 0.41 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1001 1545 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1053 0 0 1626 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0:95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 10 C (m) (veh /h) 315 V/c 0.03 95% queue length 0.10 Control Delay (s /veh) 16.8 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 16.8 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4 :13 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing EastNVest Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1164 1361 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1225 0 0 1432 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 64 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 67 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 67 C (m) (veh /h) 366 v/c 0.18 95% queue length 0.66 Control Delay (s /veh) 17.0 LOS c Approach Delay (s /veh) 17.0 Approach LOS c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHRA R I Route 11 1 -81 Off NB Volume and Timing Input EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 Lane Group L L R R T T T T Volume, V (vph) 5 596 2 247 1 1610 1 1564 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 1 10 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Ped Bike 1 RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 1 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 1 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3 3.2 3 3.2 3 3.2 Phasing W WB Only 0 02 0 03 0 04 T Thru Only 0 06 0 07 0 08 Timing G= 38.0 G G= G G= G G= G G= 60.0 G G= G G= G G= Y= 6 Y Y= Y Y= Y Y= Y Y= 6 Y Y= Y Y= Y Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 C Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 29.0 28.9 26.8 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 28.0 X 0.76 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM 1 IN HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour I Route 11 1 -81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A II 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 808 429 2049 1789 I 1 1 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 11 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 I s- Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 G= G= G= G= 66.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination 1■ EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 294 2157 1883 Lane Group Capacity, c 971 447 2067 2067 v/c Ratio, X 0.88 0.66 1.04 0.91 IN 1 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.29 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 37.1 34.2 22.0 19.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 0.23 0.50 0.43 Incremental Delay, d 9.1 3.5 32.3 6.6 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 46.2 37.7 54.3 26.0 I Lane Group LOS D D 0 C Approach Delay 44.0 54.3 26.0 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 41.7 X 0.99 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1-81 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing S #B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 596 326 1901 1670 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking Al 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 55.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 627 238 2001 1758 Lane Group Capacity, c 853 393 2105 2105 v/c Ratio, X 0.74 0.61 0.95 0.84 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 Uniform Delay, d 30.7 29.5 16.2 13.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.29 0.19 0.46 0.37 Incremental Delay, d 3.3 2.7 10.4 3.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.0 32.2 26.6 17.0 Lane Group LOS C C C B Approach Delay 33.5 26 6 17.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Delay 24.2 I X 0.89 Intersection LOS C Approach LOS Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved C HCS Version 5.2 C 8 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1-81 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing S 8 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 808 449 2125 1942 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, CM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 33.0 G= G= G= G= 75.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 315 2237 2044 Lane Group Capacity, c 918 423 2153 2153 v/c Ratio, X 0.93 0.74 1.04 0.95 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 42.3 39.7 22.5 20.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.44 0.30 0.50 0.46 Incremental Delay, d 15.1 7.0 30.4 10.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 57.4 46.7 52.9 30.8 Lane Group LOS E D D C Approach Delay 54.5 52.9 30.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 45.0 ?C 1.00 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information nalyst PHR +A Analyst Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I Peak Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 R Extension Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width L N C J J 120 120 12.0 120 120 12.0 12.0 120 120 Parking Grade Parking N O N N O N N O N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing O) C N CO L 0 EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 17.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 319 201 107 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 211 431 55 159 2067 923 159 2067 923 v/c Ratio, X 1.51 0.47 1.95 1.31 0.86 0.10 0.81 1.13 0.22 Total Green Ratio, g/C U o) 0 C 4) N CD N O 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 41.5 29.8 41.5 322 16.4 8.5 22.8 20.0 9.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.11 0.35 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 253.2 0.8 484.6 176.4 3.8 0.0 26.2 66.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d c 4) 0 a) N 7 0 C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 294.7 30.6 526.1 208.7 20.2 8.6 49.1 86.3 9.3 Lane Group LOS F C F F C A D F A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM Approach Delay 192.7 526.1 38.6 78.7 Approach LOS F F D E Intersection Delay 83.2 X 1.70 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst nalyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A INN NM Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2032 88 67 2267 255 1 1 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A IIIMI NIII Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 L 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N O N N O N N O N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3. 2 a 2 3.2 3. 2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= G= G= G= 9.0 G= 73.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 196 449 43 129 2096 936 129 2096 936 v/c Ratio, X 1.95 0.55 2.58 2.21 1.02 0.10 0.55 1.14 0.29 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 0.29 0.17 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.08 0.61 0.61 Uniform Delay, d 50.0 35.8 50.0 55.5 23.5 9.8 53.5 23. 11.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.15 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.15 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 447.4 1.4 774.4 568.6 25.0 0.0 5.0 68.7 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 497.4 37.2 824.4 624.1 48.5 9.8 58.5 922 11.3 Lane Group LOS F D F F D A E F 8 Approach Delay 317.9 824.4 112.2 83.3 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Delay 133.9 X t52 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, AI Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:06 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input III II EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R L Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e C N N N N V W O C O N C N X W 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp U y C ti N d O 3.2 a 2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru RT 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru RT 08 Timing G= 5.5 G= 4.5 G= 4.0 G= G= 5.0 G= 6.5 G= 70.5 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 297 22 201 60 21 26 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 Lane Group Capacity,c 445 128 250 79 60 352 139 2024 1051 251 2211 1269 v/c Ratio, X 0.67 0.17 0.80 0.76 0.35 0.07 1.50 0.87 0.09 0.51 1.06 0.16 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.59 0.68 0.15 0.64 0.82 Uniform Delay, d 49.5 52.4 48.4 56.6 56.7 36.3 57.5 21.0 6.4 47.3 21.5 2.1 Progression Factor, PF LL d O U f0 LL C O N N N O O 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.24 0.11 0.35 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.40 0.11 0.12 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 3.8 0.6 17.2 34.2 3.5 0,1 257.3 4.6 0.0 1.8 37.0 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 53.3 53.1 65.6 90.8 60.2 36.4 314.8 25.6 6.5 49.1 58.5 2.2 Lane Group LOS D D E F E D F C A D E A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM Approach Delay 58.0 71.6 53.7 53.8 Approach LOS E E D D Intersection Delay 54.5 X 0.99 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM 1 INN HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Coot/ ikons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2032 88 67 2267 255 1 1 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A i 1 1 Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 120 120 12.0 120 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIIIN a Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 a 2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 9.5 G= 5.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= 72.5 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination MI EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 351 32 245 51 31 29 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 264 75 256 136 75 256 250 2081 1128 129 2081 1128 v/c Ratio, X 1.33 0.43 0.96 0.38 0.41 0.11 1.14 1.03 0.08 0.55 1.15 0.24 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.60 0.73 0.08 0.60 0.73 Uniform Delay, d 55.3 56.1 49.6 52.4 56.1 42.5 55.5 23.7 4.5 53.5 23.7 5.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.15 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 172.0 3.9 44.4 1.7 3.7 0.2 100.0 27.2 0.0 5.0 72.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 227.3 60.0 93.9 54.2 59.7 42.7 155.5 51.0 4.6 5& 5 95.9 5.3 Lane Group LOS F E F D E D F D A E F A Approach Delay 166.7 52. 61.1 86.0 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Delay 83.4 X c 1.13 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, AN Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information MN NMI nalyst PHR +A Analyst Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 1 ea Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 1 1 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A 1 1 Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 s Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 a 2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 5.0 G= 57.0 G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 319 206 107 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 Lane Group Capacity, c U T 0 (0 0 m U 0 0 0 c (0 J 279 503 108 144 1785 797 316 1942 867 v/c Ratio, X 1.14 0.41 0.99 1.44 1.09 0.12 0.41 1.24 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.33 0.23 0.56 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 42.5 28.7 424 28.5 26.5 13.6 20.8 24.0 12.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k Y 0 0 U T (D 0 0 1 0.50 0.11 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 98.3 0.5 83.5 234.6 48.5 0.1 0.9 114.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J Control Delay 140.8 29.3 125.9 263.1 75.0 13.7 21.7 138.1 12.2 Lane Group LOS 0) 0 J 0 D 0 0 0 c m J 1 F C F F E 8 C F B 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM Approach Delay 97.0 125.9 89.8 123.4 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Delay 107.6 X 1.52 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM a 1 r HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour ntersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TI-1 RT I Volume, I Arrival I Parking 1 UM a e MI Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2073 88 67 2370 255 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 1 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 21.0 G= G= G= G= 6.0 G= 5.0 G= 50.0 G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination NI IN EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 259 400 57 365 1895 846 176 1723 769 v/c Ratio, X 1.48 0.61 1.95 0.78 1.15 0.11 0.40 1.45 0.35 NI r !!1 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d 39.5 326 39.5 28.8 22.5 10.8 21.1 25.0 15.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 235.1 2.8 483.5 10.5 74.7 0.1 1.5 204.9 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 274.6 35.3 523.0 39.3 97.2 10.8 22.6 229.9 15.4 Lane Group LOS F D F D F B C F B Approach Delay 181.3 523.0 87.6 204.5 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Delay 159.1 X 1.59 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A A Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Volume and Timing Input EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 126.3 44.9 58.9 85.0 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Delay 77.7 X 1.12 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Area Type All other areas Date Performed 6/30/06 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario B Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input I EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2073 88 67 2370 255 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 I Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm I Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 a 2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru RT 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru RT 08 G= 8.0 G= 5.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 4.0 G= 53.0 G= I Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 I Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT I Adjusted Flow Rate, v 351 32 245 51 31 29 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 267 91 415 138 91 261 534 1964 1092 103 1826 1030 I v/c Ratio, X 1.31 0.35 0.59 0.37 0.34 0.11 0.53 1.11 0.09 0.69 1.37 0.26 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.57 0.71 0.06 0.53 0.67 I Uniform Delay, d 46.0 45.9 31.7 43.6 45.9 35.1 38.6 21.5 4.5 46.1 23.5 6.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 I Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.50 0.11 0.26 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 165.6 2.3 2.2 1.7 2.2 0.2 1.0 57.9 0.0 17.7 168.5 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I Control Delay 211.6 48.3 33.9 45.3 48.1 35.3 39.6 79.4 4.5 63.8 192.0 6.7 Lane Group LOS F D C D D D D E A E F A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM Approach Delay 134.0 43.5 72.2 171.2 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Delay 123.8 X 1.12 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information S Site Information Analyst P PHRA I Intersection R Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. P PHR +A J Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2 2010 Build -out Conditions Date Performed 0 07/20/06 A Analysis Time Period A AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Charlestown Rd N North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South S Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street N Northbound S Southbound Movement 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 4 419 1 198 6 65 5 594 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 a a 95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 4 441 2 208 6 68 6 625 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 Median Type U Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Configuration T TR L L T T Upstream Signal 0 0 0 0 Minor Street E Eastbound W Westbound Movement 7 7 8 8 9 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 5 552 1 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 581 0 0 1 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 0 0 Flared Approach N N N N Storage 0 0 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration L LR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:10 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherfo d Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 854 607 214 657 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 898 638 225 691 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 388 126 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 408 0 132 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh /h) 225 540 C (m) (veh /h) 424 23 v/c 0.53 23.48 95% queue length 3.02 67.62 Control Delay (s /veh) 22.7 10438 LOS C F Approach Delay (s /veh) 10438 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:10 PM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 552 189 419 198 65 594 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 42.0 G= G= G= G= 46.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 581 199 441 208 68 625 Lane Group Capacity, c 722 646 833 1538 316 833 vic Ratio, X 0.80 0.31 0.53 0.14 0.22 0.75 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 0.42 0.46 1.00 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay, d 25.4 19.3 19.3 0.0 16.2 22.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.35 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.31 Incremental Delay, d 6.6 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 32.0 19.6 19.9 0.0 16.5 26.1 Lane Group LOS C B B A B C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM Approach Delay 28.9 13.5 25.2 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 23.0 X 0.78 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM 1 HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour 0 z N Q Q M aa( 0 E -0 o C .o o o) c c 0) m C H ENI Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 388 126 854 607 214 657 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 I Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nrn E Z vi 0 c C f0 2 0) c 0 a 1 Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing S D 0 L El 1 WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 l[) N Fo y; 0) (0 c Q 4 6 0 O 0 1 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 408 133 899 639 225 692 Lane Group Capacity, c 481 677 905 1292 245 1086 1 v/c Ratio, X 0.85 0.20 0.99 0.49 0.92 0.64 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.44 0.50 0.84 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 34.0 17.2 24.8 2.2 19.8 13.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.38 0.11 0.49 0.11 0.44 0.22 Incremental Delay, d 13.4 0.1 28.2 0.3 36.3 1.3 Initial Queue Delay, d n 0 (0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 47.3 17.3 53.0 2.5 56.1 14.2 Lane Group LOS 0) 0 -J a 3 0 0 c 0 J D 8 D A E 8 1 s Approach Delay 40.0 32.0 24.5 Approach LOS D C C Intersection Delay 31.2 X c 1.02 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9)5/2006 12:11 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 465 222 65 699 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 489 233 68 735 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 605 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF a 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 636 0 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh /h) 68 834 C (m) (veh /h) 866 153 vlc 0.08 5.45 95% queue length 0.25 88.65 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.5 2060 LOS A F Approach Delay (s /veh) 2060 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information S Site Information Analyst P PHRA I Intersection R Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. P PHR +A J Jurisdiction Date Performed 0 07/20/06 A Analysis Year 2 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period P PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B EastNVest Street: Charlestown Rd N North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South S Study Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street N Northbound S Southbound Movement 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 9 922 6 642 2 214 6 685 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 a as 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 9 970 6 675 2 225 7 721 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 Median Type U Undivided 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A R Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown 1 1 1 Approach Delay 34.4 14.3 34.1 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 28.1 X 0.88 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario 8 Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 402 126 922 642 214 685 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp a2 3.2 a 2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= G= G= G= 8.0 G= 46.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 423 133 971 676 225 721 Lane Group Capacity, c 458 649 925 1299 233 1086 v/c Ratio, X 0.92 0.20 1.05 0.52 0.97 0.66 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.42 0.51 0.84 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 32.1 16.4 22.0 1.9 25.9 120 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.44 0.11 0.50 0.13 0.47 0.24 Incremental Delay, d 24.5 0.2 43.5 0.4 49.2 1.5 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 56.6 16.6 65.5 2.3 75.1 13.5 Lane Group LOS E 8 E A E B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 47.0 39.6 28.1 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 37.5 X 1.09 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 355 1495 7 6 1539 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 373 1573 7 6 1620 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 26 18 13 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 27 18 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 373 6 58 C (m) (veh /h) 384 399 0 v/c 0.97 0.02 95% queue length 11.16 0.05 Control Delay (s /veh) 72.3 14.2 LOS F B F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information S Site Information Analyst P PHRA I Intersection R Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. P PHR +A J Jurisdiction Date Performed 0 07/20/06 A Analysis Year 2 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period P PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 N8 On Ramp N North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South S Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street N Northbound S Southbound Movement 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 5 576 1 1871 3 30 2 23 1 1763 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 606 1 1969 3 31 2 24 1 1855 0 0 44 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 Median Type R Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 Lanes 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 Configuration L L T T T TR L L T T Upstream Signal 0 0 0 0 Minor Street E Eastbound W Westbound Movement 7 7 8 8 9 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 2 26 2 27 1 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 2 28 1 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5,2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A r Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on 1 1 1 1 11i Approach Delay 34.6 12.4 31.8 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 21.5 X 0.90 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 2:12 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 27 15 576 1871 30 23 1763 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 9.0 G= G= G= G= 28.0 G= 56.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 2001 24 1856 Lane Group Capacity, c 148 527 2750 100 1837 v/c Ratio, X 0.48 1.15 0.73 0.24 1.01 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.09 0.80 0.80 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay, d 45.8 33.7 5.0 13.1 24.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0,11 0.50 0.29 0.11 0.50 Incremental Delay, d 2.4 87.6 1.0 1.2 23.6 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 48.2 121.3 6.0 14.4 48.1 Lane Group LOS D F A 8 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. Approach Delay 48.2 32.8 47.6 I Approach LOS D C D Intersection Delay 39.2 X 1.64 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rufherfo d Crossing Scenario 8 East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 I Volume L T R L T R (veh /h) 355 1866 7 6 1644 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 373 1964 7 6 1730 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb I RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 26 18 13 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 27 18 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh/h) 373 6 58 C (m) (veh /h) 348 279 0 vlc 1.07 0.02 95% queue length 13.49 0.07 Control Delay (s /veh) 104.0 18.2 LOS F C F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume (veh /h) 576 1968 30 23 1917 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 606 2071 31 24 2017 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 26 27 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 27 28 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles a> N L T co N C N U N 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and v c m L 0) c m J N 7 N 7 0 T R N 0 Mi Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 606 24 70 C (m) (veh /h) 268 247 0 v /c 2.26 0.10 95% queue length 47.08 0.32 Control Delay (s /veh) 609.1 21.1 LOS 0) 0 J e F C F Approach Delay (s /veh) i Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A r Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on Volume and Timing Input EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 Approach Delay 34.6 15.4 34.0 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 23.5 X 0.92 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM s HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information MI IN Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario 8 Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T w Volume, V (vph) 26 27 15 576 1968 30 23 1917 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 III Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 IMO Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 i 1 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 I Timing G= 7.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 51.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 2104 24 2018 1 Lane Group Capacity, c 134 462 2711 88 1952 v/c Ratio, X 0.53 1.31 0.78 0.27 1.03 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.57 Uniform Delay, d 39.9 29.6 5.2 10.0 19.5 I Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.13 0.50 0.33 0.11 0.50 t Incremental Delay, d 4.0 155.1 1.5 1.7 29.7 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MII 1 Control Delay 43.9 184.7 6.6 11.7 49.2 Lane Group LOS D F A 8 D Approach Delay 43.9 46.5 48.7 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Delay 47.4 X 2.12 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A I Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM 1 a 1 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A EastiWest Street: 1 -81 SB Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound 1 Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1336 295 1865 e Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1406 0 310 1963 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T II Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 274 0 672 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 288 0 707 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 U m d 0 0 Flared Approach N N I Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 l l 0 0 0 Configuration C O es) C O 0 LT R I Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach U 4 O 1 Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) L m 310 288 707 C (m) (veh /h) 466 0 243 v/c 0.67 2.91 95% queue length 4.79 62.26 NMI SIM Control Delay (s /veh) 26.8 901.1 LOS D F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 11 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM II 1 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A MIS MIN I EastiWest Street: 1 -81 S8 Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R MN NI olume (veh /h) 1661 414 2183 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1748 0 435 2297 0 MI MI M Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 I MN IIIII ME 111111 I Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) 388 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 408 0 427 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R IIIII Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) 435 408 427 C (m) (veh /h) 342 0 188 v/c 1.27 2.27 95% queue length 19.84 34.51 EMI NM Control Delay (s /veh) 175.5 628.6 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, Alt Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM 1 MN IMIll r NM I HCSTM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 S8 Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project 0 Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 274 0 672 1336 295 1865 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 im I Mu OS OM Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3. 0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopp'ng, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 1 NM Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G= G= 13.0 G= 37.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= I IS I Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 288 471 1406 311 1963 Lane Group Capacity, c 536 478 1416 329 1914 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.03 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 25.6 30.8 26.4 17.0 2a 0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.50 Incremental Delay, d 1.1 37.2 22.2 35.4 27.4 1 1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.7 68.0 48.5 52.4 47.4 Lane Group LOS C E D D D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM Approach Delay 52.4 48.5 48.1 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Delay 48.9 X 1.01 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM w HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 388 0 406 1661 414 2183 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 I Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 I Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.5 G= G= G= G= 20.8 G= 55.7 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 115.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 408 291 1748 436 2298 Lane Group Capacity, c U U d CO U a 0 0 C9 N c CO J 397 354 1669 374 2292 v/c Ratio, X 1.03 0.82 1.05 1.17 1.00 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.23 0.48 0,67 0.67 Uniform Delay, d 44.3 42.0 29.6 3a 5 19.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.36 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay, d 52.4 14.4 35.6 99.9 19.4 Initial Queue Delay, d N 0 N N t0 c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 96.7 56.4 65.2 138.4 38. Lane Group LOS F E E F D Approach Delay 79 .9 65.2 54.6 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Delay 61.6 X 1.54 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A 1 Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: 1 -81 SB Ramps NorthlSouth Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1495 330 1935 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1573 0 347 2036 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 407 0 672 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 428 0 707 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) 347 428 707 C (m) (veh /h) 401 0 230 v/c 0.87 3.07 95% queue length 8.52 63.78 Control Delay (s /veh) 50.1 976.6 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS +T Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 East/West Street: 1 -81 SB Ramps North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1703 465 2286 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1792 0 489 2406 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 423 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 445 0 427 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) 489 445 427 C (m) (veh /h) 329 0 172 v/c 1.49 2.48 95% queue length 26.83 36.29 Control Delay (s /veh) 264.3 726.5 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario B Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 407 0 672 1495 330 1935 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, Ii 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 120 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= G= G= G= 15.0 G= 48.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 428 471 1574 347 2037 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 439 1575 315 2067 v/c Ratio, X 0.87 1.07 1.00 1.10 0.99 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 35.6 37.5 28.5 33.7 20.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 Incremental Delay, d 15.4 63.8 22.5 80.8 16.4 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 51.1 101.3 51.0 114.5 37.0 Lane Group LOS D F D F D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 77.4 51.0 48.3 Approach LOS E D D Intersection Delay 54.5 X c 1.26 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A I Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario 8 Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 423 0 406 1703 465 2286 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 225 G= G= G= G= 23.5 G= 62.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 445 269 1793 489 2406 Lane Group Capacity, c 323 288 1780 397 2455 v/c Ratio, X 1.38 0.93 1.01 1.23 0.98 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.19 0.19 0.52 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay, d 488 48.0 29.0 40.9 16.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.48 Incremental Delay, d 188.3 35.9 23.1 124.5 13.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 237.1 83.9 521 165.4 30.2 Lane Group LOS F F D F C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 179.4 52.1 53.0 Approach LOS F D D Intersection Delay 69.4 ?C 1.95 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/512006 1214 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 8, Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1006 1771 41 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1058 0 0 1864 43 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 a 95 a 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 26 C (m) (vehlh) 262 v/c 0.10 95% queue length 0.33 Control Delay (s /veh) 20.2 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 20. Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR -FA Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1499 1556 54 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1577 0 0 1637 56 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 63 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 66 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 66 C (m) (veh /h) 313 v/c 0.21 95% queue length 0.78 Control Delay (s /veh) 19.5 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 19.5 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR +A urisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1076 1903 67 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1132 0 0 2003 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 37 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 38 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 l 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 38 C (m) (veh /h) 235 v/c 0.16 95% queue length 0.57 Control Delay (s /veh) 23.3 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 23.3 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1601 1591 61 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1685 0 0 1674 64 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 80 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 84 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 84 C (m) (veh /h) 304 v/c 0.28 95% queue length 1.10 Control Delay (s /veh) 21.3 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 21.3 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= 42.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 165 220 694 894 1792 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 367 800 1168 2653 2070 907 v/c Ratio, X 0.45 0.28 0.59 0.34 0.87 0.11 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.11 0.52 0.35 0.77 0.42 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 41.7 13.4 26.7 3.6 26.4 9.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.40 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.1 4.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 42.5 13.6 27.5 3.6 30.6 9.0 Lane Group LOS D B C A C A Approach Delay 26.0 14 1 29.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 22.8 X 0.71 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of F lorida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 418 557 805 1081 1504 115 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nrn Buses Stopp ng, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= G= G= G= 33.5 G= 43.5 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 115.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 440 586 847 1138 1583 121 Lane Group Capacity, c 755 876 972 2307 1864 1010 v/c Ratio, X 0.58 0.67 0.87 0.49 0.85 0.12 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.57 0.29 0.67 0.38 0.66 Uniform Delay, d 39.7 17.2 38.7 9.4 32.7 7.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.17 0.24 0.40 0.11 0.38 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 1.2 2.0 8.7 0.2 3.9 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 40.8 19.2 47.4 9.5 36.7 7.4 Lane Group LOS D 8 D A D A Approach Delay 28.5 25 7 34.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Delay 29.5 X c 0.79 Intersection LOS C Approach LOS C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 227 302 1030 849 1793 147 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= 42.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 239 318 1084 894 1887 155 Lane Group Capacity, c 367 800 1168 2653 2070 907 v/c Ratio, X 0.65 0.40 0.93 0.34 0.91 0.17 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.11 0.52 0.35 0.77 0.42 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 42.7 14.5 31.3 3.6 27.3 9.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.23 0.11 0.44 0.11 0.43 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 4.1 0.3 127 0.1 6.6 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 46.7 14.8 44.0 3.6 33.9 9.4 Lane Group LOS D 8 D A C A Approach Delay 28,5 25 7 320 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Delay 28.9 X c =0.89 Intersection LOS C Approach LOS 1 C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 C c Generated: 9/6/2006 4:25 PM HCS+Th DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 521 694 902 1081 1542 129 To Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 22.5 G= G= G= G= 31.5 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T a 25 Cycle Length C 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 548 520 949 1138 1623 136 Lane Group Capacity, c 715 879 1001 2313 1831 989 v/c Ratio, X 0.77 0.59 0.95 0.49 0.89 0.14 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.57 0.30 0.67 0.37 0.64 Uniform Delay, d 38.8 14.6 35.9 8.5 30.9 7.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.32 0.18 0.46 0.11 0.41 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.0 1.1 17.3 0.2 5.7 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 43.8 15.6 53.3 8.6 36.6 7.4 Lane Group LOS D B D A D A Approach Delay 30.1 28 9 34.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Delay 31.1 X 0.88 I Intersection LOS C Approach LOS C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 C c Generated: 9/6/2006 4:25 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1508 1763 148 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1587 0 0 1855 155 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 132 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 138 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 138 C (m) (veh /h) 264 v/c 0.52 95% queue length 2.79 Control Delay (s /veh) 32. LOS D Approach Delay (s /veh) 32. Approach LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl nda, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1886 1885 176 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1985 0 0 1984 185 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 355 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 373 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 373 C (m) (veh /h) 239 v/c 1.56 95% queue length 22.87 Control Delay (s /veh) 309.0 LOS F Approach Delay (s /veh) 309.0 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B EastlWest Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1879 1868 227 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1977 0 0 1966 238 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 190 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 200 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 200 C (m) (veh /h) 243 v/c 0.82 95% queue length 6.38 Control Delay (s /veh) 64.1 LOS F Approach Delay (s /veh) 64.1 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1983 2039 197 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 2087 0 0 2146 207 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 441 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 464 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 464 C (m) (veh /h) 211 v/c 2.20 95% queue length 36.40 Control Delay (s /veh) 591.3 LOS F Approach Delay (s /veh) 591.3 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Lane Configurations Ideal etdwc(401) Total Lost Time (s) 1 404[ 6 :61.00t§14: 6 (P) Trailing Detector (ft) Turnn`g-ISpeedyn ph) Lane Ufil. Factor Flt Protected ,SatckjEteTk(pyi50:, Flt Permitted Right Turn on Red AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates karielGrOup Bfr,A. Ts.„1/,V.BRS.SWItIS_VV,R, r vs 1900 1 900 1900 4.0 4.0 zi:O 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 5050 50 0 0 0 15 9 k-kk. 1 k kikk? 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.950 A 6 950 1719 ill 0121'5..,:s..„,i 0 1761 g 9e49A.,--7,-- ..ta-y. -z- k 1810 Yes Yes 56ta, '..,„'"E 5 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 `1760 1.00 1.00 Li:rigtS --.V.WTtl;.`- Link Distance (ft) 1172 1862 1638 FfraveljirneTsati:1 Volume (vph) 419 552 189 65 594 PeaWAFOTFaCTO Adj. Flow (yell) 208 581 199 68 625 LiTnTe:prOpiFipoIN (ypiti 44 A7 199 68 ::42681. Turn Type Perm Perm Perm PIageTeli I 1$aiesTAirpTE: Permitted Phases 4! ,Fe7,yr:---,-- Dete k c ,r,k8 Minimum Initial (s) 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 !ArniniUKSPittAs)f5:72".:;R:l 0:01,J:16:67 Total Split (s) 66.0 66.0 440 44.0 66.0 66.0 Taill§7prlitlegef -.'.'t Maximum Green (s) 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 Tim .0 4T0 k 4.0 4:&"- -:.‘..-4.07M All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 sib 2.0 Lead/Lag i :1-4;7:37 _;:P:-f 77 -,:Errt, Lead-Lag Optimize? gehiCle3,EiterikaillcS11 X) 3:0" Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act 43:2,:::43 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 0 39 0.39 Q/CIAitin 17 .9. 0.62 -0.29 .:.-t-'0:60 l 071 OF 7 70191 '-1 Control Delay 26.8 215 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 Pilege-Delay:; l' 0.2 o 0:::::10.0 -t.- 0:0 7 :,:0 a 0 Ty Total Dela 26.8 21.5 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 LOS I' ki" k c k k krk 0 ..r :0" 0 Krii-::<-B Approach Delay 25.1 18.7 26.5 Approach LOS 0 P P 90th %oile Green (s) 56.0 56.0 42.0 420 56.0 56.0 90th %ile Term Cede': Hold H610:::COOrd.. COord! 7Citl cioile Green (s) 48.1 48.1 49.9 49.9 48.1 48.1 ;iteic:?- 41 k 1 737.1 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions lienelOrpujilal, xEBL EBTT WBT,WBRt*SW/,L SANE 70th %ile Term Code •t Hold 50th %Ile Green (s) 41.6 50th %ile Term Code HoId 30th %ile Green (s) 34.4 30th %ile Term Code 10th %Ile Green (s) 25.9 10th %ile Term Code Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 Queue tLength"951h (tt) 269.. Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Lerigth °(ft), Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductnrf Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Ca Reductn Reduced ;lc Ratio I ntersection „Summary Area Type: Other CycleLength r11 ry Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset.'0 (0 %0) _Referenced to phase% Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type Actuated Coddinatec, Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91 Interse_ction.SignalDelay 23'2 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% Analysis Penodjmin) 15 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. lueue shown is a7difiCm'afteMMY,cycleStfir ..11; Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Hold= °Coord= Coord Gap 41.6 56.4 56.4 41.6 41.6 Hold; Coord Coord” Gap Gap, 34.4 63.6 63.6 34.4 34.4 Hold; "Coord ;Coord Gap 25.9 72.1 72.1 25.9 25.9 HoIslkieb rd Coord' 99 271 0.43 0.20 0.60 0.22 0.07 0.68 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 4 oB 06 44 is ='g 66 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions lienelOrpujilal, xEBL EBTT WBT,WBRt*SW/,L SANE 70th %ile Term Code •t Hold 50th %Ile Green (s) 41.6 50th %ile Term Code HoId 30th %ile Green (s) 34.4 30th %ile Term Code 10th %Ile Green (s) 25.9 10th %ile Term Code Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 Queue tLength"951h (tt) 269.. Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Lerigth °(ft), Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductnrf Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Ca Reductn Reduced ;lc Ratio I ntersection „Summary Area Type: Other CycleLength r11 ry Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset.'0 (0 %0) _Referenced to phase% Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type Actuated Coddinatec, Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91 Interse_ction.SignalDelay 23'2 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% Analysis Penodjmin) 15 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. lueue shown is a7difiCm'afteMMY,cycleStfir ..11; Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Hold= °Coord= Coord Gap 41.6 56.4 56.4 41.6 41.6 Hold; Coord Coord” Gap Gap, 34.4 63.6 63.6 34.4 34.4 Hold; "Coord ;Coord Gap 25.9 72.1 72.1 25.9 25.9 HoIslkieb rd Coord' 99 271 0.43 0.20 0.60 0.22 0.07 0.68 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 c 4- 4 Ltaneid 2EBRW/VBL:rt _TIWWBRWITIk2 NBlitis.1NBR lag II- ERLSE Scenario A 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 3 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions IritersectioniSummery Area Type: Other ,TINFi Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: '60FA;rRefeleWaed.I6:OhaSW2.NBP4Starrof.::G±egi Natural Cycle: 120 COntFOLcITYPe7Aau Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 A Lane Group lgraws4EBL, ElaittEBR a WBL 'vy BTew.,E3.13Y NBL2 NOMKIBRaLSEL-irax...SER2 70th %ileiiTerM.Code -.Max Max' Coordr.s Max Max Max Coorck-Coord l'. Max Max Max- Max 56th %Ile Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 60thlYaileiTeiii5r..06de:',- Max Hold COordc, -_Mai Max il-; Max Cobrd Coardl:=. Max Max Max- 'Max 30th °/oiIe Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5 .0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 3otffc'Aileterm'Code J..Max Hold` Cocird:. Max I gt:' Max co&a:: Max Max Max letk %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.6 5.0 9.4 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 9.4 8.0 8.0 10.0 16th ";:...Hold.; Coord Max._ Max.,'il. Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 519 0 99 -1674 0 46 16 2 481 16 --176 QuetibIWicgth 95th r 122: 636yi:: 144:41971,412081;- -.44;.' #859 InternalrinkOisi (ft) i62 753 802 1588 17_004iCilVdt51- u 21.,,i:...VPli:gfAtA.f...°2:-,(:;:,i's,?---....,-r-.-..t,..7.,,v ase Capacity (vph) 334 2152 1131 172 2149 1193 100 100 262 278 128 273 Starvation 0) 0 gi:'.t-oRt100 faaj0 irD:geir:MN0 ppiivri0);*Af0: jYtv::;;F:0 Spillt;aa dap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stbraieUktRedu'cfrc,2ga6z:cw6q,::e--0-w:i40;ta:Ticijalv-ot:TM'Wtj'r:-;::F- ;i.0..,RA40-tiz,,:,,,,, :ti0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.82 0.08 0.75 1.14 0.17 0.21 0.10 1.67 0.17 1.12 4,73.flr t €14 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.12 „cr. ci:;.xecol Intersection' Sig Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8 /0 ICU Level of Service F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. ii- Qteue ShcWn. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be ronger. 377- m2 (16 114 4 m3 WI''' p j m4 i6tiwJIJ73ns "C y 4- 08 79TSA cfat.tila 1 6 ren1 ar Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 -I> 1— Scenario A 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 201 0 Build-out Conditions LanelGitOplaa‘tv,..2EBEIT,!EBTS ct.%1;,-,..,,,,. Lane Configurations 'j ti, i i tt l Y Ideal Flow' (vphP)I 1900:- 1900:::-. 1900 1900 1900 -1900:', 1900 1900 1900 ;1906: '1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TuiTiiiigsee01(riipri),:i,,::15:: 9 15 -1 1 62-r- 1,.'15 l '9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 6.65 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FrI 0999 085cY 0968 FR Protected 0.950 0.950 0.963 sitar:pow j020 q,:Lyr51719"---(-3435,1, 0 :.3438-..'241 1 5387 Otk 0 1-; 'F 0.078 Oiler; 0.963 SitdFFlovi(perEn)177.- 3,43,5',77-, '0.: r: 29043811538,• EV:1687 :V: 0:, 9...-- Ri Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes SitdiFloCk(RTOR): `.'2--...:-; :r'. L i-Yr!'--' 4, +.;:f 190-1=7? :::,..1 4:: 4;: Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:60 1.00 1.00 ii.isppe c: T. ,77C- c4,5i."." .,..-4 ii,:7,,,-3 730 7, 77;i. Link Distance (ft) 259 1619 995 417 irreveljirrie-(s):,1 -3:92 ....4_7,, i 245.: 2.777.7 1 :i•:: Volume (vph) 355 1495 '7 6 1539 350 26 18 13 0 0 PeakiHourfabt9r.: 70.95,?.0.95.iy 0.95 0 0.95 •'`,095,i1 ,0.95-.-A10.95',.i :1,095r-if „:„095:',11 095'4 Adr.Fiew (vph) 374 1574 7 e 1620 368 27 19 14 0 0 Lane Group Flovv1.(V0h) 47. 374`,7 1581fl v Otc 4 671620Tr‘ 368W 0 ti= 4 j 7-77 7 7:0i. Lri z O Turn Type pm+pt Perm Free Prot PiiireatedThhaseS7 'I, kko-7•„:Tir Tr. v„,:••::44 CT .f.:2,:f7t.,7.!:?,1.;; ,,...t: Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Detectoc.Phases=7:= ttip,. t 4„...- tti:: :f.,'_ea.8„„:4C1, 1 8•- LJ7,_.- ,5 2 '..2.,.';,-: Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MiFiFdrii, SThit f(s)7 01017: '111:7:hooti'':71ciroT,777t716767-2, Total Split (s) 25.0 76.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 0.0 14.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ircital.W(%): 27:8% .84 A%i. 0.0% 25617% 56:7% 0.0%2,415:6% 15:6W 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 Yelic3W'Time 7 14:07 '.yj- All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag -_i7-.-- .,Lag2 .7Legt v TC,,,__„ :7 Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extensiolr(s) 7 4' 7 30. T. Tr30rk1/4. 7. 3T0 .:3'.0:.';'..' L: i Recall Mode None C C C Max Min Min AEI Effeiti 72.5 72.5' 7:748787 08'; 90 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.11 "cic Ratiai ',1 0.81 0.57 :t., 0.04 067 0.24:7 Control Delay 36.0 3.6 2.0 9.5 6.2 34.7 Queue, belay 204 06 0.0 CO 070 010 Total Delay 56.5 4.2 2.0 9.5 0.2 34.7 LOS 'A. 2 A A 1 C*. LI. Approach Delay 14.2 7.8 34.7 Approach LOS A 90th %Ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 90th %ile Term Code Max "COON Coord Coord Hold= r i Max 70th %Ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4\ N Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 6 1 m2 .11 m4 1 �I "`�76sa g..�r:� tea,; 77° c i .3�.t `�.7 ':•L 05 g m7 V o8 14 s:iitirf n 25s 51, s;: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneiGroup;; 4', 70th %ile Term Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile`Term Code 10th Toile Green (s) 10th %le Term Code Gap ,Coord Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 96 Queue' Length_ 95th (ft) m #269 150 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 Turn Bay Length- Base Capacity (vph) 482 2767 Starvation Cap: Reductt2 :_106 =,w691' Spillback Cap Reductn n 0 0 Storage'Cap Re 0 0. Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.76 I ntersectiorhSummary„ S Area Type: Other AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EBLEBTz EBRw Max Coord'" 19.0 70.0 Max -Coord- 18.3 70.0 Gap Coord'' 13.1 72.5 Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd z WBL {2WBT Coord Cdord 45.0 45.0 Coord Coord 45.7 45.7 Coord Coord 53.4 53.4 Coord Coord`; 0 56 m1 #121 1539 0.04 0.87 0.24 CycleLength 90: Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset`.. 31,( 34 /a) Refe'renced hWie4.EBTL and B:W BTL` Start of'Grreen Natural Cycle: 65 Conttol Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay °11' 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% Analysis Period';( "min) 15 T' 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is,maximum,aftertwo cycles: m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. WBR? NBL2 NBL NBRi SELt fiSER,4 HOId "Max 8.0 8.0 Hold' =Max' 8.0 8.0 Hold Max 5.5 5.5 0.31 Scenario A 9/6/2006 IntersectionLOS -B, ICU Level of Service D Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Group- Lane Configurations Ideal. °Flow.(vphpI) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector;(ft)v` Trailing Detector (ft) Turning'Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd `;Flow (prot)'; Fit Permitted Satdi FIow (perm);' Right Turn on Red Satd Flow (RTOR)` '.x Headway Factor Link Speed (mph Link Distance (ft) Travel.Time (s) Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor;:; Adj. Flow (vph) Lane:Group Flow(vph Turn Type Protected Phases'' Permitted Phases Detector )Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s)' Total Split (s) Total Spld Maximum Green (s) YellowrrTime (s)> All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag.___ Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle; Extension_ (s) Recall Mode Act Effct Green`(s'. Actuated g/C Ratio v /cRato Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %ile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EBL EBT x EBR =W,BL WBT i WBRN tt r tt 0. 1900 1900 1900A=1900 1900 1900 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.095 4.0 50 50 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.0 4.0 29.6 56.2 E 36.0 9.0 51.0 Coord;. Max Coord; 36.0 9.0 51.0 NBR.W SBL l3T. PSBR 4 0 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 206.5 F 27.0 27.0 Hold Max 27.0 27.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 4.0 1900 4.0 50 0 9 1.00 0 38 1538 Yes 0 672 5 707 Perm 4.0 Max None C -Max 380;; `+5302 0.42 1.00 0.59 0.59 097 045.'1 07 "097_ 43.7 1.0 93.4 26.4 0.0` 0(0 0.0 .23.9'. 43.7 1.0 93.4 50.3 0.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 %0 367/ 367% .367% 27.0 27.0 27.0 2.0 Min Min Min 29:05 "2910 0.32 0.32 0 52 "1.411 28.9 221.6 0.0 ,'57.3 28.9 278.9 27.0 Max 27.0 Page 8 \i144 oi 03 -0 04 33s 1 17 15P.is..44 •-442-`2.0, 42i. IrrItc:C.r.,thiZairdili-±; ,TZ7:1-01 i o6 .41-..„ 1 08 331 T.T.:E1,7 T.C. .1,1 :r:::: 10 571el:W4IST.14-itieSlearitrIritil4.4.7.41'4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build-out Conditions 9/6/2006 t fi 4. 1 lieheTGrouPgr,,TW2flZIEBLTAEBiftAEBR,AVV.BLaNN/Bil 70th %ile.Terrn Code 'y ,-,Coorcr :1 Max Coord. -7 t Hold MO Max 50th %He Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 50th,%ile Ter i Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 30th %He Green (s) 36.() 9.0 51.0 7.0 2 7.0 27.0 30th,%ile Term :Code' ::„Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 10th %Ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 10th:VoileTerM Code ti;•;-- COdi'd -MaXi Cbbiii '','V' ,t 5 Hold:- Max i m5x Queue Length dOth (ft) 400 0 -154 325 132 --5i5 Queiie Lengtft:95th (ft),T!-, m#294 #730 :212 #764 407 266 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 546 Turn Lehith (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1452 1538 290 2025 StinYatiori, Ca15:Fce7duct,?7,27: .741:11:b7,7 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 166 Storage:CaPReductrity 07 :70 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.45 1.07 1.06 0.52 1.53 IntersectiortSummary:Trif4q,.4u4..i. f 4 41:::i.r 1 '?2;a: t Area Type: Other C36111reirgihr907-Iiz TLJTIT Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Pffik (40%)TReferericed 4:TBI 8:WBTLYiStarUat:G'reen%;. +14:41,,,t,-.. 77574 Natural Cycle: 120 Control TiOe:±Actu'ated7Coordiriated, =7:ru' Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.41 InterSeEticiri ,Signal; Dela r Intersection LOS:-E7: r. 7 ii Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F A 57,1. yrs7- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. r afferbko,CYCies,` -1477 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. S lits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ram AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 554 503 .5%17:7 Cr ,e 0 42 Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions -10 C 4- 4 ItantGrroup&74724.SZMAEBTOWEBRit4,.W.BLWANBTra*.nglaaik:Vraz.,:witta,' Lane Configurations tt tt ti r 'dos F! (vptpo 7. 1900 1900 1900- 1900- '1900 1900. 1-.. ,l Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 .1': 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed(mph) .7:-:-19'il:- 15 'i 15 a Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. FIciw(prot) 3335:i 1538'; Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. 0; 3438 3335 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes 29 7 7;'' Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed:(rhph)1. Fi 45 -,z7:7_77TI:77;r7 Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 itravel;TiKe: =Fri: l Volume (vph) 1610 0 0 1564 596 247 PH6L7FcT 0.95770952.7095 i.7019 C6195:.T.To.sa Trr;.'!7:- Adj. Flow (vph) 1695 0 0 1646 627 260 CaneGroupFIow(vph)1695 0 r-7 01646 627 260 Turn Type Perm protebtedrhaSes' 74 cL Permitted Phases 2 DetectorPhaseS T4;.. y Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 44,: '4100 t t, 1 f‘ 1 OTO.;';11 Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 Total SIit(%)67%'Th0CO5% 6r8%a322% 322%JTh1fff z Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 ITT 419T1 T7 7 4707: 2.0 2.0 2.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 Cegaiiiva677;77.61 Leadllag Optimize? VaiiclelEifensioli (S) 30 T ..9:: Recall Mode C-Max C- Min M in Act Effblei 72 .175a0 77. :59 23.0 23 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26 Si/ER atio 1 -1- 0175 0.73.- 0.74 '0.63 Control Delay 6.7 1.8 34.5 31.6 Queue Delay 0.3 1 -y 7 OA 06 0.5 Total Delay 7.0 2.2 34.5 32.1 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Approach Delay 7.0 2.2 33.8 Approach LOS A 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 90th %ile Term Code CoorcF, Chord Max Max 70111%ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 10 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 4\ t NBL, Lane ;Groupz 70th %ile Term' Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %Ile Term C ode 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %Ile Term_Code' 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %ile Term Code Queue Length 60th (ft) Queue:Length,95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Tu rn Bay Length Base Capacity (vph) 2253 Starvation Cap!Reducti td3T Spillback Cap Reductn 7 Sto?age Cap •Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 1EBT,,EBR Coord g5.0 Coord 58.0 Coord 61.9 Coord 0 m0 540 Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates BL= W BTj Coord:• Max Max 55.0 23.0 23.0 'Coord: Max Max 58.0 20.0 20.0 Coord Gap 61.9 16.1 16.1 '.Coord Gap, Gap 4 162 113 22? 193 179 592 0.80 0.68 0.63 IntersectionSummary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:,90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset;30 (33 %)eferenced to'pt ase4 EBT,and S WBfT Stad of Greer-f.: Natural Cycle: 50 Control;TypeActuated Coordmated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection.Signal Delay: -10 7 Intersection LOS. B =c Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% Analysis. Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. ICU Level of Service F l 02 29"x2 ad 61as�r. =-�l� �rNS �Ja�`;t4s F 08 :I Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions tfane,Group Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)- Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed'(mph) Lane Util. Factor Fri Flt Protected Setd,:;Flow (prot) a Flt Permitted Satd Flow'(perm) Right Turn on Red Sala._FIoW(RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed'(mp )1. Link Distance (ft) 1445 1679 827 Tra_veiTime (s) 2_ r j 32 8 r =_?`25 4 12:56 Volume (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 Peak.HourFacto _0.95 0:95', 0.0.95 0 95.'x..';0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 220 694 894 1792 99 Lane Group-Flow:(vph) F :165 220-694 ="894 :'1792 99=' Turn Type custom Prot pm +ov Protected Phases' 7 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phases;C- Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Mmimu_m Spld (s): r- 10 0, 10:0 x 10 0 =,<10 0 10:0 Total Split (s) 23.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 34.0 23.0 57.0 Total Split 25:6` 36 :7 36:7 %',37:8% 25 6% 63 %fi> Maximum Green (s) 17.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 28.0 17.0 51.0 Y_e_IIow:Time (s 0 4.0`; 4 0 -.4. All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead /Lag y Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s), '3 0 3.0 3 0 t,,• 3.0• 3 0 3.0: 3 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max C -Min None None None Act Effct Green (s) 11 6 90.0_ 290-=290 37:42:..7 53.0_• Actuated g/C Ratio v /c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS. Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th Toile Green (s) 90th %Ile Term Code 70th %Ile Green (s) 0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates .0 EBL~EBRfleNET`C a qn r vi tf ttt it 1900 '=1900 1900 1900 1900,• 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50,. 50'. 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.8501': 0.950 0.950 3335 1538 33357;:3438 .«494 1 538 0.950 0.950 3335* 1538=; 3335 ,3438 4940 1538 f Yes Yes 61`=. 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.14:°- 065 081 0.87 0`11': 36.3 0.2 27.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 00 00` 0.0 0.0' 0:0 0.0T 36.3 0.2 27.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 A-- C C. C 15.7 29.7 29.3 12.3 27.0 27.0 27.0 32.7 Gap Coord Coord -Coord Mai 10.7 27.0 27.0 27.0 34.3 4/ SWT' £SWR' 12.3 51.0 Gap Hold` 10.7 51.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 12 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions LanelGroup„. EBK9EBR NELesasvvssyy,Ezeuvo 70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord COord;Coord Max Gap' Id 50th %ile Green (s) 9.6 27.0 27.0 27.0 35.4 9.6 51.0 50th i%ile Term Code GaP' Coord Cood Coord Max Gap ,Hold 30th %ile Green (s) 8.5 27.0 27.0 27.0 36.5 8.5 51.0 301h %ile Term Code; Ga CoorCCoord:: Max .fy Gap- Hold 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 38.0 7.0 51.0 10th %He Terrn Cede Gfip; Mak:2 GeP*Hbld, Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 0 162 214 333 8 pillerue Length 95th Internal Link Dist (ft) 1365 1599' Tan Bay Length (ft)rz. 77 -7„77 1 7.27.1 4 a: Base Capacity (vph) 704 1538 1075 1108 2052 931 StaT b.. OFH Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sterage'CapftedOctny[ Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.65 0.81 0.87 0.11 intersectIon.ISulTImane,:,1: .s.ftc,41 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 :E7: 7 I ._st? Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%); RefeFenced;to:pheSe'2:NET:andi5:NflitgeTbf T TT Natural Cycle: 60 Cohtr011ype: 71-v Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 IiiTerel -rtriN Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C r ATibria t ig Perrod ((nin)T1 777.777,17 -717 1T. 777 .7 -1 114 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. L. Queue shown-is rhaXimum,efter Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4/ 7-7 7 .1 7 1 l 02 57%e. 05 33'"inr7ie. t.aMtl:;14.-.4.27f4tra7cillk 7 04 4 07 ;c o8 23'efireg,t7614714Tal,34TIWY Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 4/ Lane!..groupityn;, a Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (VPhpl) 1900 :19007 19001900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util-Fadtor 100 1%00, 100 c0.95f 0.91. Fri 0.865 0.988 Flt Protected., (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4881 0 r tt ttt. Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 Headway FactOrje Link Speed (mph) 30 Travel Time (s) 30.5 Yoluiffe.(yph), r 4, 07; Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj." FloW(Vph)ii?. Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 139 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 1587.11856-,1:156 1587 2012 0 Freer Free2;.:.!.: tWa4.,‘ 3438 4881 :oo 45 45 2411 1679 36.5 25.4 15081 Intergdction,S1Inifiary 7-mr 3-4 Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection CapOpitji UtiliiatiO776 Analysis Period (min) 15 Scenario A 9/6/2006 -t tZ.thfc AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 t 4 Lani.G.roupSc-„EBLI-wIEBT--.4.VV,13T,R Lane Configurations lit tr) r !.4 FlOW (vphp:1) 1900 1900,- 1900Y: 1900: 1900 f. Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 .50,; 50t, 50 50 .50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 TuMing'i:Speed:(rnph) 1 -:11- 9-,'Z.,:l •-1 1 91,. Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frf.:::- i. y 0850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 sita:FIA(pri501;- 171 OLT 18103?-_-15387;j71951538y Flt Permitted 0.950 -§-ardirSPW:(PillfrOy;':),: $.,:1810,c1-1-810;?...181101Z1,7:1538;1219T1538-YgE1-_,',:,ctz;,,,"1.,,,,,! Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR),-. li-t7 1 -133 -7.253 4 ix:: :.1 4- t.- ?r-, Headway Factor 1.00 1.0 .00 1.00 1.60 1.00 Ciiik f '4..7_ 1 ..1 ,I.1.. 1 1 .-7_=.. t ef. c, r: 11 LZ I M i Th. g: 7 ...7". Link Distance (ft) 1172 1862 1638 Travel (s) H7.8 282 A.:.'”7.2 It 1-2.. a t. A 4 .1...:,; Li 1 Volume (vph) 854 607 388 126 214 657 Weak 'HOIrEa8TOFT 1 0 0.95096. I' ,0.95 1 '7.0.95,i-..g.13957 Adj. Flow (vph) 899 639 408 133 225 692 latig:6T-Oup, F167.:(S76h).., '''8997, 639.: :7. 408:: .6927:-: Turn Type Perm Perm Perm R dted pfi .:7.7 ar ----9'.. ..1c A Cir_ 7;77: Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 DetectOr.Phasest,:jr.1,. ::7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum -Split:(s):7 1, L10.0 4 n0.0 Z10 .67:7710.0 7k. -f ..H L ---1 77„ Total Split (s) 66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 r6fal Split 6010,% 60.0°/07600°/07 IFEW Maximum Green (s) 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 yellowTime (S):7: 4.0= I. 47;f t 4 Vir4.C4.0": 'c,i- All-RedTime (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 liD 2.0 2 .0 Ce 747 I aii;c7:7 ,2, g. Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension(s): '3.07" 3.671 3767.. 3.0..72;3.0' 3:.0 Real Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act Effct 61.6 ''61.0 41.07 61.0r 61..0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.37 0.55 0.55 Silc Ratio -7 0.90 0.64 0.60 0.20.Y:7-1324 0.72 Control Delay 30.7 19.4 33.3 5.1 12.6 14.5 Queue Delay .1076 6.01 o:r- 700 71,76.0 1 Total Delay 30.7 19.4 33.3 5.1 12.6 14.5 ITOSTIT T Ci[::: ts Cc '..;'''A1.-; B71._ ia Approach Delay 26.0 26.3 14.1 Approach LOS 90th 6 kiie Green (s) 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max poet cd'Orert- Max Max 76th %Ile Green (s) 65.3 65.3 32.7 32.7 65.3 65.3 Scenario A 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 57171Group,,,- EBL,,,A,EBTMVVBIL24VVBR,c. 70th %He Term Code Max, Max Cbord: CoOrd,: Hold--1, Hold 50th %ile Green (s) 65.2 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 50th -%ile Term Code Gap Gap CoOfdl Coord Hold 30th %He Green (s) 56.8 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 30th-%ileTerm Code ll Gap Gap' Chord, Hold 10th Toile Green (s) 47.7 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 lOtH%ileTerrnCode Gap. 7 Gap: Coord: Coord HoldThlThicild: Queue Length 50th (ft) 457 253 253 0 66 186 011eUe::Leriith 95th-(4), -#814 408 31 4O 119 361 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1092 1782 1558 TO1Fil:BayLingflft), Base Capacity (vph) 1055 1055 709 684 1002 1002 Starvation Cap'. "0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storagel,,Cap'cRedUctrioeT 0 T 7 :791,11:7;1707,:k?Cm c11 7 179-17:7".. 7 2;;: :.-?.13-,;;;;;-: ):71 7 3,;, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 Area Type: Other cyclelLengtE110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Natural Cycle: 60 .4 As ,‘Zr----- pffseS:1 Gieen,,,,'L)tsr,', Control Type Actbated-CoordiFited-i '..1 777:3 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 lifteilsectionkBignal,Delay7.22. Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E `Analyfiis7Period',(min) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. TOrleilleThhOWificmThicaur Phase conflict between lane groups. S lits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 06 ..-t 04 66 s ,,:s iLt5 .:„,-,f.,:avi ,,-.75.;: .t.*,,, 4( 11 08 eiv It 66.i.-7,.m 12: ire4-19; a-ba...c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 57171Group,,,- EBL,,,A,EBTMVVBIL24VVBR,c. 70th %He Term Code Max, Max Cbord: CoOrd,: Hold--1, Hold 50th %ile Green (s) 65.2 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 50th -%ile Term Code Gap Gap CoOfdl Coord Hold 30th %He Green (s) 56.8 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 30th-%ileTerm Code ll Gap Gap' Chord, Hold 10th Toile Green (s) 47.7 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 lOtH%ileTerrnCode Gap. 7 Gap: Coord: Coord HoldThlThicild: Queue Length 50th (ft) 457 253 253 0 66 186 011eUe::Leriith 95th-(4), -#814 408 31 4O 119 361 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1092 1782 1558 TO1Fil:BayLingflft), Base Capacity (vph) 1055 1055 709 684 1002 1002 Starvation Cap'. "0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storagel,,Cap'cRedUctrioeT 0 T 7 :791,11:7;1707,:k?Cm c11 7 179-17:7".. 7 2;;: :.-?.13-,;;;;;-: ):71 7 3,;, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 Area Type: Other cyclelLengtE110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Natural Cycle: 60 .4 As ,‘Zr----- pffseS:1 Gieen,,,,'L)tsr,', Control Type Actbated-CoordiFited-i '..1 777:3 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 lifteilsectionkBignal,Delay7.22. Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E `Analyfiis7Period',(min) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. TOrleilleThhOWificmThicaur Phase conflict between lane groups. S lits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions .1latieiGrOuviat,S,% .....AIEBL-z,tEB1152,,T,EBRoZVVBLAVVBTAWBF,Riz:INB11-2te,NBL4ADNBREIRSEMSERESER2 Lane Configurations VI ft r tt r vi 1' VI r r loalF10/(v00)_ 1900 1900 1900-", 1600`::: 1900:.j-11900. 1900. 1900 1900 1900 :„:4906: 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 Leading Detector (ft) 50 j 56; c .56 50 50=';-*: 50 56: 50 50 50 ,c .50 50 Trailing betecfor (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning:speed:0120n 15 i :T .'..,.:9L- 15 9.,-;-.}-15. ,15:" 9 15 91. i." 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fit' -7 7 16.8607,:,1 16,1...!' ..:-:,0.856 0.850 0.850 :,7 0.850 Flt Protected 0.650 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd Flo(iWOOT:: 7 -1 .73335 :3438 1538717197.i 1719'. 1538z; 33352:1538,:: 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satth -„3335i°3438`..7.15382 17.19,V,3438 1538 3335 1538:J1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR)• 5:-.7- 7...7.---F Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.66 i.bo .60 1.66 1.60 1.00 Ein .,.;-7 .7.77307,.7._..,t :::4.Til Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 TlayeLTii ;712.8ti.lir::::47.77,... aT-±12:63:2 -iE.y,„,„ T 200 t-zi.ti."1„,. .37.911,121,,i7.gt DI Volume (vph) 271 2032 88 6 7 2267 255 48 29 28 333 30 333 Peak:HourFactor:',-;A 0.95 -..0.95 095,k.'t 0.950:95 0.95 095-, 0.95.:095 r„ 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 Ea n;G roilp 85p 4:139,, 32;77, 351j Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over proteded.Phases: ...1-.;-7 .2 ±5-27773!- .7-: L a Er.-..n 6"..:,.-7-772 ri 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector; Ph 4 1 .3 J.. "87.- 6, ';.171"...2 7 2 :::::73?:',..C.:;..A6: S i.24•,;.74 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 410 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 476 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minithum Split:(s) is'710.0 n10.0771 00'i El 00:10.1I0.0 71 00 2' 10:M 10.01 1 ,1 0'0 "0ti Total Split (s) 17.0 83.0 12.0 10.0 76.0 15.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 flotarSjilif 7,-. 14 6929/0',,100%.. 83%::.633°/2;--12.5ClIf0%.10.0% .873%=:12.5%,1/;.17472%: Maximum Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 yellow-Tirne (S)1Li+F, r. 470c4:0 50,7E 11.4,07-4. 0 ::::;1.,4: j c :01";:,, All-Red (s) 2."6 270 ...:di, 2TC 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lagi 7. Lead Lag .Lag j. -::71:--: Le a d7. T: fag :•?:1-7 :-, 7-eic! ;.:74-'i „-fteld, Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehidle'EitensiOn t3M 307?.:.-:-3,0: 307 3 '3.0Th 30 161 30 :r., c Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None Abt Effct•Green:(s) 13.0 :79.0 .90.9 6.6: 72.083.1 7.9 7.9 13.9 11.1 11.1. 13.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.66 0.76 0.05 0.60 0.69 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.09 011 V.i/c t. 0.79 0.95 0.08: 0.83 1:16 0.24:70.45 0.27 0.15. 1.14:?;0.23. i 117 Control Delay 68.5 29.0 0.9 114.4 101.4 1.2 66.5 59.5 25.1 142.0 54.9 135.1 QUeye,Delay 0.0 OM 00 0.6' 18.5 0.0 2- 0.0 0.0 c; OM 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.5 29.0 0.9 114.4 119.9 1.2 66.5 59.5 25.1 142.0 54.9 135.1 LOScl:- E E C F D F Approach Delay 32.5 108.1 53.7 134.9 6th LOS-' ID F 90th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 90th Toile Term Code Max Max COord Max- Max -Max CO Geoid Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 lc 4\ 41 Page 3 ti m2 oG 14 o3 o4 il l'I A 7 1214: 15 irrril :..t f 10V:481s ......4 :tr, AT :.E1 :ii atii.‘,.- iiYria aalc 21 07 .1=- o8 1 Wilitact7 .1 ,t-sz.-,!..1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions C Scenario A 9/6/2006 vc_ 4\ `I liane:Grotip_241,-/,,,,,EBL-,,fiEBffic--;;EBRia&VVBK„WF3frpiaWBRITN 70th Toile Term Code I. Max Max :Cooed, Max Max Max Coord Coord Max l:III Max Max Ic Max 50th %Ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 50th %ile Terenpode Max Max Coord Mai- Max: Max Coord 'Cobrcl;- Max- Max Max Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 30th' Term Cede Max. Max CdOrd Mii,„.I Coord Coorp,:. Max Max Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 5.5 4.0 70.0 9.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 9.5 9.5 11.0 10th l%ileTerm Code Max Held I'Coord. MaX1-.Mix3t Coord Coord. Max--: Max t Max M Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 725 0 56 -1148 4 39 23 10 -164 23 -217 Q6640 Length 95t(ft) .#176 ,W933 i :--12 t14c#1282:Ir:4 I 82, I I.:_• 56 1:1. 34' #408 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 ITI I. '''.:.'1'f:.,. Hl'iL t.-'1 7±:"...:17 Base Capacity (vph) 361 2263 1189 86 2063 1135 115 115 189 309 142 299 stalciffOri cag;IT ;',-2 0 0 7 1:1 0' 2 7 ,d, os,i i 9 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIOTage7C agdU6T117.11K-70:::: r- .:L*7:9 icia's:?Loy 0 o;,:r FT. 0, it: L ordyEstxr- 4;-7,, oTikip Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.95 0.08 0.83 1.20 0.24 0.44 0.27 0.15 1.14 0.23 1.17 I qtersactiomSOmmarY;rII*t.:.=;Ze;Cft;a1 ;Itaif.±11=ITeati,:talif.,III ,..g,:.:- Area Type: Other C3 t Cleielligth: 120 1 2 7 r y 7 7 ,1 `,7-1,:r7,737,--,--- "47,7.7,77; Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offsetf,0 (0%); Referenced toOhae62:1■IpeSfert-ofTOTeeriii:!rt:Eca I. _,:r>i;:;a'k ;;":7::: Natural Cycle: 120 ContreFfype:Actuated-Coordinated7' •I '4 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.17 Intersection SighalIDelay179 ci'n 4,-,1 2 Er:C:7777:::- Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F r Analysig:Period(rnin)15; ctk.. -1: WIII Vs 1;,- -iI t, i-I 2- 7 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is blaxlfriaTiffee.tiWOZTcres 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. c' :Queue shown.is maxim UM afteRtwo•cycles. '.:;:iII77 j. ;Thf-; r77: 4 27 a.," S lits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneEGroupr Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)' Turning Speed (mph) Lane UtiI. Factor. Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factor.?: Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft)x'� Travel Time (s) yolumei(vph) Peak Hour Factor Adj: Flow (vph)' Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign Control �1 a-- ►t- EBL4 EBT, VWBT i:pWBR aSEL t tt rf 1900 1900 1900 1900: 1900` 1900 15 9 15 9 1.00 1.00 0.95, 1.00.- ,1:00 1.00 0.850 0.865 0 1565 0 1810 3438 1538 ;00 1:00 1 00 1.0 45 45 35 166`; :1172 7 1075 2.5 17.8 20.9 0 1499, .1 0 54 _9 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 17 16387; 0 1578 1638 57 0 66 _Free Free:.;`s` Scenario A 9/6/2006 Intersedtiori Surrimary -�5'. Area Type Other, Control Type: Unsignalized I ntersedtion Capacdy Utilization 82 27% ICU'Level of: Service Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions _Y -0 C 4- 4 Scenario A 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 6 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneLGroup i 4t EBL, EBT �EBR WBL WBT.;sWBR}NBL2 70th %ile Term, Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max 50th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 50th' %ile Term:Code Max Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 30th %ile,Term.Code Max, Coord: 10th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 ,10t %ilb, Term_ Code M_aiLC_66 ?d Queue Length 50th (ft) -349 132 Queue'Length 95th (ft) m #350 m130 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 Turn Bay Length. {ft)' Base Capacity (vph) 557 2899 Starvation Cap Reductn '162 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap`Reductn41. r Reduced v/c Ratio IntersectionSummary- Area Type: Cycle Length 901_ Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Other 1.53 0.99 Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 45.0 45.0 4.0 Coord Coord Max 45.0 45.0 4.0 Coord Geard?. Max 45.0 45.0 4.0 Coord Coord Max'' 2 -619 0 `m4 rn #708 :m0'i 1539 0.24 1.03 0.31 V I P Z NBLIVBRSELztSERs�: Max 4.0 Maxi: 4.0 Max 4.0 0.57 Offset 31 (34 Referenced to phase EBTL and 8 W BTL,.Start _of Gree "n'ti' Natural Cycle: 110 Cont Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09 intersection Signal Delay::51`8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis.Period'(m'in) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown;is maximum after tw- cycles 3 ,r 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. r Queue shownis.maximum aftertwo`cycles m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 337 02 4 05 1 o el--'- I =f 04 kg e7 F ma Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneGroup Lane Configurations Tat r Ideal -Flow (vphpl) 19061, 1900,":1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading. Detector. :'i 50- 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 Turning Speed(mph) a15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 Flt Protected Satd, -Flow (F t Flt Permitted Satd: -Flow (perm) 0 3438 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Sat& Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor L•inkSpeed;(mph): Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) "C.: Volume (vph) Peak °Hour Faatirn° Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1748 LaneGroup Fldw'(vph) 0,14 748 Turn Type Protected Phases'' Permitted Phases D etedtor Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split.(s) 10'.0± _�10 0 ±e1 0:0 -t J All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag L ag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle. ExtensioM(s)' Recall Mode ActEffct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio "v /c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS` Approach Delay Approach LO S 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %ile Term Gode` 70th %ile Green (s) PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates I 4- 4 1 I WB12 V,VBT LV,VBBRI NBL NBT ,NBR SBLe SBT .(SBR 1900 1900. 1900. 1 900; 1900 -:1900 '1900, 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 50' 50' 0 0 15 9 1 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 487 Prot 0.950 ,1749.;3438,: 0.091 =1185 3438=` '-rri 4r 4.0 4.0 4.0 C -Max None C -Max C40.0 90.0 61.0 0.44 1.00 0.68 0.68 1108 0.99 99.0 1.2 79.2 23.7 0.0 0.0 23.1 99.0 1.2 79.2 46.9 -F A s1- E D 68.9 52.0 E 38.0 15.0 59.0 Cootd Max Coord 38.0 15.0 59.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 -50 50` 50 0 0 0 15 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9. 0 0 777 436 2298 0 0 77771436 2298 O O S Free pm +pt Free 8 Total Split (s) 0.0 44.0 0.0 21.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Split /o) o oo/ 48.9o/a%; 0 0% C 23°3 722% 0 0% -0 0 %u 0: Maximum Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 Yello-v Time.(4 1r. 4i07:7:4 14;0'; 2.0 2.0 2.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 4 r 0 :850 0.950 1719 .1538 0.950 ;1 Yes 19 1.00 1.00 346 388 0 406 095 {'1'095 ,*=0:95 408 0 427 '427t Perm 4.0 4.0 4.0 -;:t;) 10 0 ,;;1 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 %27t8 %a 27.8 %27:8 %0 w- 19.0 19.0 19.0 40 ==4:0:r 2.0 2.0 2.0 Min Min 21 0 21:0 0.23 0.23 1.02 85.7 132.3 0.0 59.7 85.7 192.0 F F 140.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold: -Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Page 8 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build-out Conditions 9/6/2006 t Lane*;Groupl.raticiEBMEBTOEBRAVVBL,„,V,VBT44VVBR.ANBILaNBTQ:41NBF,larSBY.SBTIASBF,k 70t1 Term Code t'' :'Coord Max Coord 1:'' C.,;- 1 Max Max 50th %Ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord, Hold Max Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 30th. yoile Term Code "2:-. COad':. Max. Coord l Hold Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 10th';,,°/pileje2t :v :.-..Coord ,r,`, Max Coord, Hold Max ak-- Max Queue Length 50th (ft) -618 0 -227 420 -240 -288 Queue L§Tnith:95th:(ft) f. 7-1 0 m#299 m#845 ,Thic, #425 #473 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 407 266 TidriBaYiengtli (ft), "T C .7.-:;. .j 11 ,1 ii -C .1 j-:::41.t.:. ;■,.:1A mat', Base Capacity (vph) 1528 1538 405 2330 261 36 Stant Cap;Raductnt',Rtitc 9 -....toI, „io5,7.„,1,7y:„,,,:,„ -,,,,:i.:At 2 ::,f i o'ji,,-/o, 8pillbackCap ReducIn 0 6 0 161 0 39 Stora Redtarki-A (1r;13W02.:`; 0. Reduced v/c Ratio 1.14 0.51 1.08 1.06 1.02 1.30 r i2t, Area Type: Other Cycle jLength*90-t Actuated Cycle Length: 90 pffset:4_ (49%), to phase 4:EBTIrn of:Green, Natural Cycle: 110 Control„Type:TActualed4Coordinated:. Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.16 InterSection SignahDelay ----41'‘Intersection LOS:_E •f"- Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Kn iiidIr)7157 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. F Queue shown'is,maXiMum aftertWocycIes 71 9 percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. fiTcideue.shown is maximum cycles e m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp 4 06 25 s'a 1 03 21a 0 04 44'iAel,;13SCArW4MilM:0;Tte, TWX,110PIC": 4- o8 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions -P: "ty te I- 4 t LianelGroupWat Lane Configurations tt tt Vi r Ideal FloW (violii)l) 1900 0-1900- 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 .f 4- 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 TUrning-Sfieed(Mph) 4 9,- 15 [ri 15 9TC Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.97 1.00 Frt "F-;:2.1 .1 .i- 0850 Fit Protected 0.950 sAK:FIOA2(07§t) 'Hii4:: i 343 8 I 0 T 9 7 T 0 E4 3 0? 3 9 53 8 :fr.:. Flt Permitted 0.950 Satcl„: FloW"(ifel ..3438 1538;-_t Right Turn on Red Yes Yes S attelow(12TOR)72 ="_•,t1- .1,1 4,(„5.-- ___;_r: i10';' 4 j_ Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Iiink 74 w.: ff.:: 45cf 35 ii r gi r. -:7,- .tz-_-_-:?:,,..77-L Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 TF TIMTeT(s) 7 9:4 i 73197-.11-13:-VI':7,7j7.7,ciarJ:7:7,77,7:77 7,-fm:. ;:::51 :.&icp, Volume (vph) 2049 0 0 1789 808 429 EfeaWHCiunraTtii.i7:7:; 0.95...T0.95c:1'0951:7095 c Z Adj. Flow (vph) 2157 0 0 1883 851 452 LandtGrop„ Flow (IV) 2152t )"1-;',01 011 8837 3 :QzTZEI-E r :a;:::;Lif. 77----ri 7777 4 Turn lype Perm PL21101L4Atli,t-t;i1-:!,; 4 it Permitted Phases 2 Detectoi -,5 7-. .ii- 4 :±K,:,:.. -,T Li '::27 l'2*: Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum:Split(s) J- %-10.0 r,----r; 52:1- 10.0r=.:10.0? .:10077 5 :-.Q. Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 fratilSj5lif- T67:8% 0:0%' --070°/0 32.2%t" Tr :'•;4.:,• -7;-; Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 Ye] lOW:Tirie7(S)1,7 Tr 7:79.6.77. 2•5:: 741=k7747:01.:“?Al 27:2 -1 .T 7 w ift:_ 7 ::::;1; All-Red time (s) 2.0 "2.0 2.0 2.0 L ""±1 fitli 7: Lead-Lag Optimize? yehicle.Exteasion 3 --39:4,: 3.0,..t 30 Recall Mode C-Max e-Max Miri Min ACt•EffctGree 5710 t„ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 VIC Ratio `II t 0:99' i Control Delay 15.4 Qi_ieueDelaY 1 15.0 Total Delay 30.4 LOST: 1, C:,_, Approach Delay 30.4 Approach LOS, C 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 90th •%He Term Code Cooed 7oth %ile Green (s) 55.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates y.57.0i. 25.0g 25.0. 0.63 0.28 0.28 0 92 1 04' 3.6 48.0 87.7 0.0 15.1 6.1 48.0 102.8 6.1 67.0 A. E 55.0 23.0 Coorct Max 55.0 23.0 23.0 Max 23.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 '7C O Page 10 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 4' 4-- 4 P L- .*Ii:Saktentc.„`"4 E B E BRAIN a.B.:1 B ,A9B13t.-47. 70th %Ile Terrn'Code‘ Coord Max :-Max 50th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 50th Toile Teini-COde Cood Coord Max Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 30th ile TerniCode; COOrd' CoOfd:, :Max Max 10th %He Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 10th %ire ..Term Codb CoorcL coMci Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 186 20 241 -277 QueuelLength'951h r h12 Q #465 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Length' (fty Base Capacity (vph) 2177 2177 926 434 SpillbackdeP Reductn 1 irj±::4 Starvation Cap Reduct St orage ap.Reduetn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.95 0.92 1.08 Intersechon-,Summaryt Area Type: Other CycleXength:490 1 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offign0 (33%); RefeThicSathage Green Natural Cycle: 90 CO.iitrogyTe in r Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 I n terkektio Sign Del 30:8?-. 7., '277 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G PeilTd (m in)1 -2- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. rQueue shownikmaximum after two cycles. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. F shown after tWaTcycles:„ m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 4 l* 02 o4 siiiiwztniktravmeweztirragraYPli.:' 4- 09 G17115 L.ret7rk PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)z� Detector' Phasess�„ Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split Total Split (s) Total Spld 0 4 Lane =Gfoup to EBL I EBR NEL ,a; NET SWT SWAT Rrs r tt ttt r 1900;'1 900 !A 1900." 1900 1900A 19002 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading, Detector '50 50- 50 50; 50 501 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning 8.1.074 (mp) Lane Util. Factor Frt;; Flt Protected Satd'.FIow (prat, Flt Permitted Satd:`Ftow (perm): Right Turn on Red Satd :Flow.(RTOR)'; Headway Factor Lnk Speed (mph Link Distance (ft) Travel,Time (s)4 Volume (vph) Peak Heur Factor Adj. FIow (vph) L'ane:Group FIow_( vp Turn Type Protected Phas Permitted Phases Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s)7. All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle''Extension(s Recall Mode Act Effct Green; (s Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio x, 0'.79 Control Delay 47.8 Queue Delay' 00 Total Delay 47.8 LOS,., D„ Approach Delay 22.1 Approach LOS C 90th Toile Green (s) 13.0 90th %ile Term Code Max-' 70th %Ile Green (s) 13.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Yes 19.0 53.0 37.037.0 34.0 34.0 41x1 37 8%037 8% 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 None None C -Max C -Min None None 32.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 Hold^Coor`d, Coord 47.0 31.0 31.0 41.9 28.0 Max= 28.0 Yes Scenario A 9/6/2006 28.0 Max 28.0 Page 12 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 70th: %ile Term Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 13.0 50th okile Term Code' Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 13.0 30th %ile Term Code 10th %ile Green (s) 12.8 10tha %i(e Term Code' Queue Length 50th (ft) 125 Queue', Length 95th (ft) #193 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1367 Turn.Bay Length.(ft);' Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage;Cap.Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio 1nteTsection.SUmmary Splits and Phases: PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Lane`.„Group EBL- EBR_ NEt ?NET SWT SW,E2 Hold'= Coord; Coord; Max." Max 4 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Hold Coord Coord}„ Max Max 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Hold Coord. Coord.Max, Max 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.2 28.2 iId =Coord .Coord Max Max r= 189 337 319 0 46' "263 0.79 0.53 0.69 0.90 0.96 0.20 Area Type: Other Cycle Length Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset 80 (89 %0) ;Referenced to phase2:N Natural Cycle: 80 ControlnType Actuated Co_ordmated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 IntersectionSSignal Delay:'33i4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% Analysis Periat(min) 15 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown =is" maximum after tiwo_ cycles 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 1599 747 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Intersection'LOS: C ICU Level of Service D 02 ThsSita 05 37x1 7 04 53 m7 19 rifIg.K 34T ll° Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane,Group Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)`.: Turning Speed (mph) Lahe,Util: Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volumer(vph) Peak Hour Factor Adi Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign C ontrol y IntersectiorirSumma 0 Area Type Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 68;0 Analysis Period (min) 15 EBL'° EBR NELrNET SWgTESWI r„ 1900 1900: 19 15 9 15 1` 00 '1.00 0.865 tt ti 1'900- 1900 9 0.95 0.91 0:91 0.987 Scenario A 9/6/2006 30.9 36.5 25.4 0 y 355 0 18351 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 U `Level; of'Service <0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LanesQroup. Lane Configurations Ideal FIow.(vphpl): Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turn1ng•Speed:(niph), Lane Util. Factor Flt Protected Satd .Flow (prof Flt Permitted Satd xFlow (perm). Right Turn on Red Satd FIow Headway Factor Link_Speedu(mp Link Distance (ft) TravefTime (s) Volume (vph) le ak,Hour, Factor$, Adj. Flow (vph) Lane_Group Row(vjF Turn Type Protectea_Phaes) Permitted Phases Detector Phases:? Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s_) Total Split (s) TotarSplit %g) Maximum Green (s) Yelloww1 me (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle;- Extensior'(s Recall Mode Act, Effct Green, (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v /c-Rato Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS' Approach Delay Approach LOS' 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %ile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 /a 51 1 °/a X48 9 4899 %2 51 51 1 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 None None C-Min C -Min None None 41!.0 41 0 410 410 41'.0 ;'41.0 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 3.6 34.8 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EBl WBT WB atisyi SWR 1 t t 1900 -1900' 1900• 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.5 22.7 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 Hold Hold' Coord Coord 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 1 1900 19004 1900-,; 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 0 9.„ 1.00 1.00 33.0 40.0 40.0 Max Max 40.0 40.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 1 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build -out Conditions tianefOrirt 70th %ile Term Code 50th %ile Green (s) 506 %Ile Term,Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile Term Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %le Term Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queuet'Length 95 (for m296 Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn, Bay Length (ft)= Base Capacity (vph) Station CapReducth2 S p rva illback Cap Reductn Stora` Reductn 9� P Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.080.9 I nter on,sum m ary -EBL EBT „:WBT4 WBR SWL,;,SWR H "old Hold :.;Coord.; Coordr r Max :—;`:Mare= 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 41.2 41.2 Holthf Hold" Coord"Coord`:; Max Max 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 40.4 40.4 Hold Hold Coold' Coord Gap Gap s,. 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 33.3 33.3 Gap, Gap Coord Coord 207 33 309 0 851 851 831 814 808 811 Area Type: Other Cycle.Length 90w Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset t80 (89 lReferendbOo phases6 W.BT 'Start of Gfee Natural Cycle: 70 v Control; Type.: Actuated Coordinated' Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 _.F x— Intersection Signal Delay 21" Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% Analysis Penodr(min) 15 H 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may longer Queue shown& maximum after twd' cycles 14s m Volume for 9 percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. i Ph ict grou Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 2 06 -p04 46n ffi o mV 441$ m 1 4ZC 4G s I....,=, It Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build -out Conditions tianefOrirt 70th %ile Term Code 50th %ile Green (s) 506 %Ile Term,Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile Term Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %le Term Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queuet'Length 95 (for m296 Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn, Bay Length (ft)= Base Capacity (vph) Station CapReducth2 S p rva illback Cap Reductn Stora` Reductn 9� P Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.080.9 I nter on,sum m ary -EBL EBT „:WBT4 WBR SWL,;,SWR H "old Hold :.;Coord.; Coordr r Max :—;`:Mare= 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 41.2 41.2 Holthf Hold" Coord"Coord`:; Max Max 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 40.4 40.4 Hold Hold Coold' Coord Gap Gap s,. 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 33.3 33.3 Gap, Gap Coord Coord 207 33 309 0 851 851 831 814 808 811 Area Type: Other Cycle.Length 90w Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset t80 (89 lReferendbOo phases6 W.BT 'Start of Gfee Natural Cycle: 70 v Control; Type.: Actuated Coordinated' Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 _.F x— Intersection Signal Delay 21" Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% Analysis Penodr(min) 15 H 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may longer Queue shown& maximum after twd' cycles 14s m Volume for 9 percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. i Ph ict grou Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 3_ 4- It- 4 P Lane‘Group.. wit _EBL EBT/WB VVBT WBR _NBL N Lane Configurations 19'i 14 r vi tt r 19 19 r Ideal Flow:(vOh OW z 1900; 1900j-1900' 1900x1;!1900' i-_,1900,' 1900-.i 1900 1900 1900. r1900 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 Leading :Detector(ft) 50.i :50'„,..-:-• 50 :,50 't; 50:- 50 50;-,' 50' 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tylpipg .15)."...:;',-..;2,•[,, r92 9-j• 91.fr :2;:,i... 9 Lane Util. Factor 097 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 re.:,:::,.-''-:-'FiA-,,-,.- ‘..•-•-•:::;':'%'0.850E.-• =,:4: .,t .0:850P..0:850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd.. Vi- 1538 5S8g;,.:71 .538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 6.650 0.950 etd:iFlovy(13erinG 7,-48?45:01!" 343§i:T.,1538;.! 2 .-17t1911,.:3438:t2:'1538k1719=f-;:lz1s K-1538f•;?:3335145,38131-1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes sa:tcr:fr[6*(13TqtR)RjntT:-V--:41,Yg6"'?PW-in:.,,--Trc-qv.:e.-9 96w. -aL 12 -4=',!-;:=1"..c5`.1 '1 147 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1I06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L'inkr.Speea rn 1 I inIM-41,:ittV 7 45DP 6., '17:4 30 1!;` Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 TFraW(TrricO:-'(s)W-- 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 67 20 25 282 21 291 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 3 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LanejGroup 70th %ile =Term Coder 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term�Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th' %ile Term' Code 10th %Ile Green (s) 10th- ilesTerm Code Queue L ength 50th (ft) Queue;Length 95th Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn "Bay Lengtht(ft),?, Base Capacity (vph) Starva Cap Reductn' Spillback Cap Reductn StoragejCap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio EBLEBTTEBR° WBLWBTWBRI1‘,1B11-2 NBL -BNB Max Mag tr Max Max Max Coo Coord" Max:. Max 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Max Maz_`,Coord, Ma .;Max Max:: Max Max, 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Max.' Max ,'Max Ma "x Max iCoorJ Coord.. Max- Max 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Max Max= _Coord i`Max Maz Maxi`,Coord Coord Max Max -88 -923 0 33 1 5 89 m #76 m #80 753 Intersect erkSummary Area Type: Cycle' Length:: Actuated Cycle Length: 90 offset`t) (0%0) Referencedto phase Natural Cycle: 120 Control; Type.TActuated Coordinate Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.26 Intersection S grial Delay 83'9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.8% Analysis P�enod(mm) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum aftertwo cycles 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum aftertwocycles x; m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Other AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4-- Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd Scenario B 9/6/2006 04 57.4s' i£- o2 Vag) it T 06 1nial r 1F 03 orelaw 07 08 54 EI SER2 Max Mak 6.0 7.0 Max Max 6.0 7.0 Max Max 6.0 7.0 12 -113 #275 134 134 232 296 137 286 0 0.62 0.96 0.09 1.12 1.26 0.19 0.45 0.16 0.11 1.00 0.16 1.07 Inter L ction ICU Level of Service F Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions L'ane?Gar Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)' Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util: Factor:. Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft)`„ fraver Time (s) Volume +(vph Peak Hour Factor Ad1 ,Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign Control t Hite rs a ct i o n wS u m r a ry, Area Type s Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity 0tth ation 6216 Analysis Period (min) 15 j v EBL EBT W,BT�W BR; S 1900 1900:` 1900 .1900 1900 1900 15 9 15 9 1 :00 1:00 0`95=;.:.1.00 .1'. 1. 00.E 0.850 0.865 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Level of Sen icee AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 3 LanejGroup Lane Configurations 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl).. i 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 T urningSpeed,,(mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt y Flt Protected Said. Flow (prat) Fit Permitted Satd' F(ow (pefm) Right Turn on Red Satd Flow (BYOB) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel 7Time (s) Volume (vph) Peak Hour Facto; Adj. Flow (vph) Lane "Group FIow,(j5 Turn Type Protected Phases_ Permitted Phases Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) T�otal'SplitA( �;1� Maximum Green (s) Yellow;Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead/LW Lead-tag Optimize? Veh icIeExt (s) Recall Mode AEI Effdt Green (s Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOSS Approach Delay Approach "LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th. %pile TermrCode 70th pile Green (s) 104.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 374 1964 S1 q 4 "EBR W,BL' -r.WBT WBR NBL2 NBL ni+ 1 1 tt r II 1900 ^•_1900`' -1900 1 1900 1900'= x.1900 19001 1900 .1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50:1 50 50= 0 0 0 0 0 0 259 2.9 19.0 11.0 70.0 Max ,Coord 11.0 70.0 2.2 1619 9.5 0.1 9.6 7.8 53.0 53.0 Cooed. Coord 53.0 53.0 0.3 0:0' 0.3 8.0 Hold' 8.0 995 0.11 031''.: 34.7 00 34.7 C 34.7 8.0 Max 8.0 SEL' %SE 417 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 6 11 02 'tt l'• 04 14:iiffsl. Atli 7G'1.-- zfr:Allif- f 05 3 o7 4-, V* ca8 I I '117 itta 1 I r .-c Pt i 7t- $Tia'' 1 Kt 5n:* Le-eW e -;Mar'PiraenteA$t'ank"Trne_ea7e2't''if I 117kpki 1 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions 3_ c k 4\ `i Scenario B 9/6/2006 QaneiGroup"..an.A krivEBlitulEBTOEB.RtIEWBWVV Um sNBL-2--,-,„iNtENBF,Z `2:11$ ERii.,-;!:M,. 70tNcYoile Tenn Code Max-i?Coord :C6orcli:;•COord '.7 5: i'f ::":F101c1:,*" 50th %He Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 50th:%ile Term Corie Max', Coord Coord Coordif Hold: Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 30th;%iliTerm'Code MaX-:Cdoiclr- Coord Coord :CT- Hold Maxi.: 10th %ile Green (s) 13.5 72.5 53.0 53.0 5:5 5.5 10thz5VOile i.:: Me'K'iCo Coord Coord 9•:1;:.:‘ ,.9a0"..:::, Queue Length 50th '(ft) 2 216 69 0 498 0 4 Queue Lo'ngth (ft)rn#265 7 --_,m50= t- -in1'. 622 -m01, f 7 62 7,1 r r i Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 TU (ft)ii..-i..: ..r.";., 'I 7 7 7 7 2 'LI :ij--k:::: l r- 4 Base Capacity (vph) 339 2767 111 2101 1538 191 Stan/ation.CapReductnL7:-- -5 475 --1','; 4 9," Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 25 0 0 SteragetTP Reductnti" 0:i,c :O.' '-tTt 077q:* E .4 Of:- 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.12 0.86 0.05 0.83 0.28 0.31 IntersectorrSurnmarYjM2r Area Type: Other 9ycIeLength9O -r Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset 31 (34%);•ReferencedriaThase'4:EBTLand :WBTUT-Start:Of f Natural Cycle: 80 CoTiFal Tyl5g::'Actrated?C537 Fated t;. R 7:::77:7 ;,n7 717: 1 .7? 777:7.`,77 777 ',IC 7";7 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10 IntersectionSignal -Inte 1-77 intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service b r A n alySis Periodt(min) 15; -,1";;;-' .7:4 2 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be ronger. I 'Queue shoVvn is maXirnum after.twocyClesfrir: m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions LaneiGroup_ zrekellVALS;,.,E13I;;,;:4,4EaTOIEBattlyv,BLaavv,8Tf4wv R.RegINBESINITKaINIBR! Lane Configurations tt r ii tt Ideal FloW(yohjiljp ..:1900. 1900;: 1900 ,1900;:‘,1 900 .1900 k2. 1900 :"..,1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LeadingDefect& (ft) 50 60 50 50. II., -„,;1';: Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning-Speedriphy -c;:,,15!..,":,;.. 91 15 t-k:i.,- 9:c1:" Rj15iic.r.: Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes VhicIeExtisi&(s) 3O 30 t N one -Max Act Effct 9(107 Ti$470 54:0 ActuaTeEigiCReilo 0 1.00 0.60 0.60 Control_belay 66.9 0.3 108.6 29.9 QUeue Delay- 66 00 bio 6.8 Total Delay 66.9 0.3 108.6 36.7 Approach Delay 46.5 47.1 Approach LOS D D bOth %Ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 96th %He Term Code Coord Max Coord 70th Toile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 3.0.7c 3.0 3.0 Min Min Min 28:0 T2870 0.31 6.31 6:807 .1:4's 41.6 244.4 0.0 0.0 41.6 244.4 D F 167.9 F 26.0 26.0 26.0 HOldr: Max Max 26.0 26.0 26.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 AlisBmisE3TRNSBE3 4 if lobo 't 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 50: 50 50 0 0 0 15,!' 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 8 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions Lan e,Grou pt.41.. kzEB,1,--S.EBiTtlEB ,RiariVVBIL;$1. 70th %Ile Term Code Coord Max Co6rd '7 Hold: Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 50th %ile Term Code .Cooril, 1 2. Max Coord 2- t Hold tt Max Max 3bth °Aiie Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26. 26.0 26.0 30th TerifIC6de r .:Coord -J Max CciOrd;,.... 1-lold7,-:, Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 36.6 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 1othyoile Term Code !,v-21 Coord::.;:: Max COordi:. Holth..= Max Max Queue Leng6 (ft) -523 0 -188 350 222 -557 QueTie Length 95th(ft) ;,1,,,-:.C..v" i, #776 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 407 266 TuriiEfayteb (fir tr ..y.y.•- 44.::::= 117 Base Capacity (vpiS) 1452 1538 309 2063 535 485 Staiv'atrOn:Cap Redi:161ritc -77 67, 4 9 0 H;;:57::: .17: ci q Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stiii Reductnr 7,011x.tt: ...0:: ,;-0 ,r,::_a07::-7,7,,,:::: 7 "ci 1 :57:::- I 0-1 .1/40, Reduced v/c Ratio 1.08 0.45 1.12 1.02 0.80 1.46 Intersection1SuricrharykatWeL,ge 4-4n. Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 902-_,, Actuated Cycle Length: 90 CiffEF,`36 7:If-Y. Natural Cycle: 90 Controljype:.,Actilated-Coprdihated:•1..,?. 777;.:171-77-1 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.46 IntersectRin 76 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G AnalysisPericidiftin)715,. ‘;:k.dee; Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. FT- Queue;shown is;maximurn after two:cycles: f L •i "Th. e 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycIs. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates f -r• c 4 4\ t 4/ Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 9 t o3 04 321 ltitr::1 1 sirgtiwri --q2 42 PI i o6 41- If 08 32 iZt.S3air:71' ""r2 58(1.2.42r..TikretC1/27 ":42asa...r.:41c...c,13, Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions Lan e,Grou pt.41.. kzEB,1,--S.EBiTtlEB ,RiariVVBIL;$1. 70th %Ile Term Code Coord Max Co6rd '7 Hold: Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 50th %ile Term Code .Cooril, 1 2. Max Coord 2- t Hold tt Max Max 3bth °Aiie Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26. 26.0 26.0 30th TerifIC6de r .:Coord -J Max CciOrd;,.... 1-lold7,-:, Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 36.6 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 1othyoile Term Code !,v-21 Coord::.;:: Max COordi:. Holth..= Max Max Queue Leng6 (ft) -523 0 -188 350 222 -557 QueTie Length 95th(ft) ;,1,,,-:.C..v" i, #776 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 407 266 TuriiEfayteb (fir tr ..y.y.•- 44.::::= 117 Base Capacity (vpiS) 1452 1538 309 2063 535 485 Staiv'atrOn:Cap Redi:161ritc -77 67, 4 9 0 H;;:57::: .17: ci q Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stiii Reductnr 7,011x.tt: ...0:: ,;-0 ,r,::_a07::-7,7,,,:::: 7 "ci 1 :57:::- I 0-1 .1/40, Reduced v/c Ratio 1.08 0.45 1.12 1.02 0.80 1.46 Intersection1SuricrharykatWeL,ge 4-4n. Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 902-_,, Actuated Cycle Length: 90 CiffEF,`36 7:If-Y. Natural Cycle: 90 Controljype:.,Actilated-Coprdihated:•1..,?. 777;.:171-77-1 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.46 IntersectRin 76 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G AnalysisPericidiftin)715,. ‘;:k.dee; Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. FT- Queue;shown is;maximurn after two:cycles: f L •i "Th. e 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycIs. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates f -r• c 4 4\ t 4/ Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 4— 4 14. Lanej.Groupktigt„,,, V _Eq Lane Configurations tt tt ti r idea) FlOyi :,1900,,, 1909 1900 1900., 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) ....j19b: 15 Jr.'', Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected Satdc.-Flow-(prot) Hi Permitted SalcITFIOE(perrn Right Turn on Red 811d7Flow (RIOR) Headway Factor Link Speedfriph)yr Link Distance (ft) firavel-Time (s) Scenario B 9/6/2006 0.950 f-3438 34381, 3335 n1538', 0.950 343Q_ Q 0t3438 3335 1538- Yes Yes 4 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 620 259 672 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 10 4 4 02 0 4 572 IPV,0:2"afeltKa ar-41k: it„ 33.!itZflit,:ttAIAT-7:I'Xat Ak 1— 08 57,a7i.:a.ia7•4rt.-iti A W, °"'i:::::;:::::'::11t. 71.2Z 447 1 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions IlanLGroupc:ilastropz-1.%-*TEB:r.44AEBIRv.WBL, 70th %ile Term Code Coord, 50th %ile Green (s) 52.3 50th %ile:t erm,Code C_Oord 30th %ile Green (s) 56.7 30th %ile Terin"Code2f, Cborc\ 10th %He Green (s) 62.1 10th %ile:fern:I:Code '1Co&d' Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 quo}14-Length:9,§th (ft)? F[5161:_ Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2163 Starvation Cap 2;77:T.: 447 Spillback Cap Reductn 50 Staiage1C Redulatn:47.70" Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 -fr t S lits and Phases: 17: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Coord Max .7HMax 52.3 25.7 25.7 _Cobrid Gap Gapt 56.7 21.3 21.3 .COord Gap Gap 62.1 15.9 15.9 Coord. 7 1777. 17 155 167 80 206 262 179 592 r 2163 1075 502 13;:f 15 cit,71:" 0.82 0.58 0.68 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Intersectita:Suliimakt Area Type: Other 72; r ir; Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset,30,(33%),.ReferencedAo.phaseA:EBT4nd:8: \/vr;.start Natural Cycle: 65 gointrol:rype:.Actuated-Coordinatedr Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 IfiTeFsgoticTn Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G hi9s Period(min)15 C.T. ‘1t m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions LanelGroupe, 1:...dEB11.„„A_ Lane Configurations IdealfloW Total Lost Time (s) LehdingtetecioTr (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) TOrning'SOeS1(mph)l Lane Util. Factor -11 f.! Ci .14 ,45 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 ttt ff 1900 .1900 1900' .1900"; 1900, 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50:: 50 50. 50 50-., 501/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 -9" 15 .9 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Scenario B 9/6/2006 SatdFlOw (prot): :3335..i538. 3335' 3438t 4940...:="1536...S7_ 7 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 S T. 333 7 1538,:,,L,3335:r,-3438 A 4% rt Right Turn on Red Yes lei 5at (RTOR)2 ...?:-....L A: ar"; Y 4 ;1.: Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lihk Spe ::I-:30 7 7 :145:: T 7.: s7" t.t Link Distance (ft) 1446 1679 827 EriqvelJP i ,'.....,=7- 12.531::,',.;.±:2 a 4 Volume (vph) 227 302 1030 849 1793 147 reOli -t=.0.95 'O :96: 0.95C 095-10.95 .:,,,i;:a. '4- C 7 t Adj. Flow (vph) 239 318 1084 894 1887 155 Lane:GT6 WJQT5h) i7 -.77 Turn Type custom Prot pm+ov Protected Phases '5 7'7„- 7....1 4 t. 2. 1 It- Permitted Phases 4 8 DificloriffifhiSeSA: a 7q-,.t:777 0710;5 7 2 kj';',C 71k Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum.Spilt:(s).... 4 .4,710,0.:.. 100 .4?,100i T:SP25,1°.-9:13110.5k :1010 ;;W Total Split (s) 13.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 45.0 13.0 58.0 144% :35 35,6% -35.6%150.0%7:1414% fir= L ciiii; Maximum Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 )(2116W:TATF(s) `7. 7401 7 f74 767714':0:f7: 7 4:01:T4107?;14107 :37410717Emf a 7 2', A;t r 7.71 1,,y,-,,i e :71 it All-Rea time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 li eLead R. L LagLeaLl LI tu- 'cif. Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes .,S1.§:tiiCi ,13:.1 30 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Min None None None ACIEffE47 7I• 9.0' 90.0 r 2872c. 408 538 :Y.. ET, Actuated g/C 0.10 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.45 0.60 v/c Ratio Hy:. 0.72 021,.,: 1.04- 0.83 0.84r:2 7 Control Delay 52.4 0.3 65.7 35.6 25.5 7.9 Cueue.Delay 0.0 o.o o.o: o.o 0.0..i* 0.0 Total Delay 52.4 b.S 65.7 35.6 25.5 7.9 Approach Delay 22.7 52.1 24.2 Appitiabh LOS C D. C 90th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max'- Max Hold 70th %Ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 o2 7 o4 32:er• IR 5e 05 v d 08 _If 07 32. 4, A crrciztgar,o,: ..-S.,;‘, Ci, I KT:" IV,13. iE34:1 Id 45, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions AM P EAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Base Capacity (vph) 334 1538 1046 SfaTivIlatiOn7CaO1; Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap,, 017 0- Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.21 1.04 tiane!GrodiraY>taEB=EE3Ra-, 7O91%ile Terrn Max: Coord Max Max'': HoId 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 50th %Ile Term Code Max Coord Coordi Coord Max Max Hold 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 30th %ile Temilcook_ Max Coord r- Coord Coord: f. Max, Max HoId 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 27.1 27.1 27.1 37.9 7.0 50.9 10th,%ile.Tarm Code:X." Max? eaOldTtoord Max Holdk",' Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 -338 251 354 32 Quet.;eLengthil95th(ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 1366 Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 1599 747 1078 2250 922 4. Scenario B 9/6/2006 2.14t.r..-11Ce 2:04esti 0 72 0.83 0.84 0.17 Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions La`ne)Group Lane Configurations Ideal ,Flow (vRhpl) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util: Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt P,errnitted Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factor t Link Speed (mph) Link Distance Travel Time (s) volume(vph) C_ 0 3438 4861 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adt F low(vph), "0 w.2 00m O_1978 1966" 239 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 200 0 1978 2205 0 Sign' Control w Stop Free, Free 5 I ntersecti on3Su m m ary E(i EBR Area Type Ot Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utili at o n59 6 Analysis Period (min) 15 tt ttt+ 4/ WT W 1900 '1900 1900 ;5'1900. 1900 1900 15 9 15 9 95 0 .9,1 0,91'; 0.865 0.984 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Level of Service; AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Configurations Ideal Flow•(vphpl)= Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector(ft) Trailing Detector (ft) L• a e Group Turning Speed`(mph) Lane Util. Factor Frf 4- Flt Protected Satd Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd Flow (pe`rm)` Right Turn on Red S_atd Flow (RTOR)'i' Headway Factor Link Speed(mph) Link Distance (ft) Trav& Volume (vph) Peak Fac Adj. Flow (vph) 971 Lane Grouj5Jf `(vph) 97:1, Turn Type Perm Protec'tedyPhases Permitted Phases DetectOF Phases r i Minimum Initial (s) MiHaUlfiglicrOr Total Split (s) Total Spl Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /L`ag Lead -Lag Optimize? V eh icle` Extension;(s)7 Recall Mode Act:Effct Green (s)'. Actuated g/C Ratio :C Control Delay Queue -Delay Total Delay LOS, Approach Delay Approach LOS r 90th %Ile Green (s) 90th' %ile Terrri7Code 70th Toile Green (s) PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4-- EnaEBT'" WBT .W „BR SWL SW,R f T r vs r 1900 t 1909 1900; '1900: 1900 1900; 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 501; 50' 50, 50 r50 50: 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.950 53 8.1719`, Yes 1.00 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 1% 489% 48'rg:51..1. %751 12: 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 None None C -Min C -Min None None 43.9 Max 49.1 35.6 25.8 10.9 43.9 34.1 34.1 43.9 43.9 Max =Coord' Coord Max Max 49.1 28.9 28.9 49.1 49.1 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions -1/ 1- t LanelGroupg.l 7SE ,EaTtaVYBIRAVVBFRia-SWITSVVRtat, Scenario B 9/6/2006 70th %ile:Terrri Code foai7:::::: Hold t'''.', Hel& C:`, .-h, -ctf: .t1: t.:-,.:„, 4 56th %ile Green (s) 53.5 53.5 24.5 24.5 53.5 53.5 50th Cede,..if.:,.Mak.--.,5 i Hold:1 4' ,T, t..•'.;;, aoth %ile Green (s) 56.9 56.9 21.1 21.1 56.9 56.9 30K.,%116 Hold,...-...-" 10th %ile Green (s) 61.6 61.6 16.4 16.4 61.6 61.6 1 Oth dueUe Lerigih55th (ft) 604 420 221 27 51 126 auetie:Lergth:95th(ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 1114 1782 1558 Tomiift 7zi Base Capacity (vph) 1106 1106 804 721 1051 1063 Starvation Cgr;RedubthTT?ZbMff71 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 st Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.21 0.68 j Intersection'ieurnma Area Type: Other Cycle Len ....„,--a-kr7 J Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset80489%MReferenced.to Natural Cycle: 70 c6411- '7317:47:77VE- S-1-7SZEtte. Maximum vrc Ratio: 6:88 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service AraliiisIParipdtljn)D w,rdejwa=441. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Tch.. tWosgarer,2114 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. gPIhra 136 :thl:Wn'irSA61 6 1PIRCI7 Tat Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 2 rtTall: 74. It' 04 48w.2.-.n 08 06 46- 44 margInr k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions -1/ 1- t LanelGroupg.l 7SE ,EaTtaVYBIRAVVBFRia-SWITSVVRtat, Scenario B 9/6/2006 70th %ile:Terrri Code foai7:::::: Hold t'''.', Hel& C:`, .-h, -ctf: .t1: t.:-,.:„, 4 56th %ile Green (s) 53.5 53.5 24.5 24.5 53.5 53.5 50th Cede,..if.:,.Mak.--.,5 i Hold:1 4' ,T, t..•'.;;, aoth %ile Green (s) 56.9 56.9 21.1 21.1 56.9 56.9 30K.,%116 Hold,...-...-" 10th %ile Green (s) 61.6 61.6 16.4 16.4 61.6 61.6 1 Oth dueUe Lerigih55th (ft) 604 420 221 27 51 126 auetie:Lergth:95th(ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 1114 1782 1558 Tomiift 7zi Base Capacity (vph) 1106 1106 804 721 1051 1063 Starvation Cgr;RedubthTT?ZbMff71 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 st Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.21 0.68 j Intersection'ieurnma Area Type: Other Cycle Len ....„,--a-kr7 J Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset80489%MReferenced.to Natural Cycle: 70 c6411- '7317:47:77VE- S-1-7SZEtte. Maximum vrc Ratio: 6:88 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service AraliiisIParipdtljn)D w,rdejwa=441. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Tch.. tWosgarer,2114 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. gPIhra 136 :thl:Wn'irSA61 6 1PIRCI7 Tat Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates ic_ 4\ ffr 4.0 4.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 3 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 f Lane:,Gra6PS-44: EBSZEBirtit4ESRT: „Waga,WiairaBR7d• NSL=2 NIBL _NEIRWASELMSERnER2 az...," 70tii Max '=6thii CoOni C' 'T,:' Max 7..,9 MOX:,CoOrtl; Coor0 50th %Ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 50th::%ifeTernCcicie. ',Max Max[Coorcli.':•Max,!'± "Max4 Max Coord Cbefd Max .1 Max 6* 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 c Max7:,:'Mait:,Coord Max :,„Maxt-c ,:1‘ilak:COorcl ?•COcird- Marf:.....'Mth*- Max ,t, Max 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 61.0 5.0 0.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 tOth goad MaX Skip (Ciajat:::;'M0 M Queue Length &Ott) (ft) 83 -735 6 42 67 2 28 17 9 -124 17 -162 podue14090795thAfty..mi3AitQLpK=i71&-:iitT4041' -9 991. ari!''' 41 to-, 65','; Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 Till:A' BT'YLell9fhl(ff )F- 4. .L i„? ,'2 T if't':::''R'65a t ffi j ::::CfiN ;:Y 2 5 ia. 1, ;jig.-!M,*1,-k.,,D:'f::.? Base Capacity (vph) 334 2101 1153 115 1910 1081 134 134 227 296 137 291 Slefcation7CaPhRedgetnib7iii:rc 0:77tEcii20;:k :::?,49: Spillhack Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Stilrage,CaP, 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 1.04 0.08 0.62 1.31 0.25 0.38 0.23 6.6 1.19 0.23 1.21 er, ^rti ?acct. „if: Intersection4Summarybk:t_ Area Type: Other CY;Cie7Le Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates t 02 11FAR a m6 12firaS 4 57,1M-Stcla an Iz 403 10IFIFfla 07 nrsTotiitt 15164rer 08 neA1/4",:a* Scenario B 9/6/2006 OffieF:0:(0%); Ad Blic7Start of'Greemo';' Natural Cycle: 120 COhtfolTYW:Actuatedzt eiordirigigar'S-7 mr Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31 InterSe6tionjSignarDellW110,f3„ ntepaiorilffs:7F,:nrjavrt 718522*T114. Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F KrTaTR's'zrdhaK(Friiii)T;15MEFiri-M,VFIVW:c:P,V Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Na aft070 WOTCYCIeVilthi 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. °77cilledefib:WFF,iSrri m Volume for percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 3 a La °'ne;Group EBL 1 EBT k,W,BTil W_ BRW°SE Lane Configurations +T r r Ideal Flow.(vphpl)' 1900 -19002 1900!: 1900- 1900 1900;? Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util Factor 1.00 1 00 0 95'w 1.00 1.00 ,,;1.00' Fri 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (Prot) Flt Perrriitted r; Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factory Link Speed (mph) Link ,Distance (ft Travel Time (s) Volume,(vph) Peak Hour Factor Ad1FloWVOh) M Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign Control Intersection Summary AreaType Control Type: Unsignalized o Intersech n�Ca opacity Utilization =8 Analysis Period (min) 15 0 1810 3438 1538 Scenario B 9/6/2006 0 1565 evel of:Service `E PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Volume (vph) Peak'HOUr FactOr1:. Adj. How (vph) Lane Group Flowy(vph Turn Type Protected'P.h'ases Permitted Phases Detector PhaseFF Minimum Initial (s) MinimumnSplit (s)`T: Total Split (s) TotalSplif( %o Maximum Green (s) Yellow Trme All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension',;(s Recall Mode Act,Effct Green;(s Actuated g /C Ratio .Q Control Delay Queue'Delay Total Delay LOSS'. Approach Delay Approach °LOS, 90th %ile Green (s) 90th P /vile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) 606 2072 60e 2104 u:. pm +pt PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates f La enLa Grou v p,,_- r EBL EBT�� EBRWBL�°°.WBl" WBR NBL2_NBL $NBR���SEL -3/4S Lane Configurations +1+ R 99 r ideal Flaw (yphpl)- 1900. '1900'' 1900' 1900 '1900 J- 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 Leading Detector_(ft) 50,. 50 50 50 50; Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed;(rnph), •:.15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.998 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd.Flow (prot)v 1.719 3431; Flt Permitted 0.068 Satd ..'Flow (perm)'4 Right Turn on Red Satd Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link S'peed'(mph Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 53.9 77.9 Perm 29.9 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 Max Coord: Cooed Coot-d' 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4 Free Prot 53.9 4.0 4.0 Max Max 4.0 4.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 6 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Group* w_ EBL -EBT 70th. %le Term Code. 50th %ile Green (s) 50th•, °f ile•Te'rm Code" 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile Term Code 10th %Ile Green (s) 10th %ile Term Codeo-� Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue 7 Length•95th (ft).m Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bray Length,(ft). Base Capacity (vph) Starvati on Cap Re ductn LL_ Spillback Cap Reductn Storage'Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio I ntersection;Sum mart'_ Other Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Max Coord 15.0 74.0 Maxi Ccitird'zi 15.0 74.0 Max Coord�s' 15.0 74.0 Max Coorel -444 16 #4117- 405 2899 1.66 0.97 EBR WBL WBT WBRr NBL *2 „'.NBL: NB Coord Coord Max, Max 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 Coord C oor'd:' Max :'Max 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 Coord Coord, Max Mak' 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 Coord Coord Max "Max 11 628 0 33 m17rn# 103 2101 1538 0.23 0.96 0.37 124 Area Type: Cycle Length 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offsett 31 (34 to phase4 EBTL:and 8 W BTL;Start et Greed Natural Cycle: 120 Cont •Type Actuated- Coordin5tec Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.50 Intersection;Signali Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% Anal Period min 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximuhi after two cycles a 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. .Queue shown`'is maximum after wo}cycles. Y m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 0.57 02 05 Scenario B 9/6/2006 SER Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Flt Protected Satd Flow,(prot) Flt Permitted Satd 'Flow (perm);, Right Turn on Red Satd Flow (RTOR Headway Factor LmkSpeed (mpfi) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s)'= Volume (vph) PeakrHirt Factor; Adj. Flow (vph) Lane Group F.IR (vpl Turn Type Protected Phasesre;': Permitted Phases Detector Phases" Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s)n Total Split (s) Total Sp'I,d a Maximum Green (s) yellow Time (s) r All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag�� Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle 9 3:1 nsion (s), Recall Mode ActEffct Green (s);; Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue DeelayA Total Delay LOS,. .F a Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th: %ile Term'':Code 70th %Ile Green (s) f PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates --P Lane °Group. Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detect6F;(ft)>; Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turning: Speed (mph Lane Util. Factor tt 1900; 1900' 4.0 4.0 4.0 71.7 38.0 Coord 38.0 BR :BL= WBTAWBR';; NBDJCNBT 4.0 4.0 0.0 21.0 65.0 48 9% 0 0% 23 3° .72:2%9 38.0 15.0 59.0 102.7 0.1 127.9 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 102.7 0.1 127.9 56.6 68.7 15.0 59.0 Max Coord; 15.0 59.0 F R T4 1900 1900:!' 1900 =1900;;;;‘,; 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 BRSBLSBT SBR 4 F 1906 1900 -1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50! 50 `'50 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 427 5 7427 Perm 4.0 19.0 Hold 19.0 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.950 1 538 0.950 9 1538 Yes 4.0 1.00 406 4.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0327 8% 27 8 °%'27 =8% 19.0 19.0 19.0 2.0 Min 21'10 0.23 0.23 11 171x7. 112.6 134.8 0 0 0:0 112.6 134.8 F 123.5 19.0 Max 190 19.0 Max 19.0 Page 8 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions iirail'Ectoup War ;r::.---EfrilritiVVBSVBTAVVBWIZNE311L, NBIAINIETRWTEWTSEIHMSBR 70th ,°/9ile:TerM (CA Max" Coord Max Mak 50th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 50thi%ile-Terrntede 'Co Ord: Max Cobrth.-- Hold'' Max Max 30th %He Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 60thloileiTertri:CO0?1 ::-:',;..y-lebord;t, Max- Ceordky;',:i, Max, Max 10th `Voile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 A OthiP/Oile`TerrrilLedel..i .:Thr=i1.`. .Max:CoRird4f....A'-';` 1 Max Queue Length 56th (ft) -638 0 -294 -775 -260 citletiILOodthjisti):(ft) i rtijyrti#337, #475i...7#478 Internal Link Dist (11) 753 540 407 266 T*:riP6430Fdth(t9Y:j71V-a'-ktif:J*'4::E'I'j7 Base Capacity (vph) 1528 1538 405 2330 401 365 SfaFVatfOh':baq5adEiVfn7:E:T4S:itk Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 gfailabelleaPFredUttit 4it b 7 N::O <ciZOW5e -NY074 ,,,..7.,V ii Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.51 1. 1.08 1.11 1.17 IntersectieniSummary Area Type: Other C en..azt -4..e. Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offsef36:140%);RefelenCed":161Ptiare7.47EBTaildf8:vyBigisreFtrpfiereWar A17,rfikfi Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated F:raih atedt;;T=raV;E- rr 5 Vrfg:7-- ype., .!,,...:;Ti4yL--cyln Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.21 InTeggetianTSiFWDelajeg-7:4,ctairlicW Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G Knalxsis,iPerfed: Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. QUeriiihOWiiiKri14imp4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. QUeue" m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 =wcz.1 t 25ag;". IWO 08 25fs c 03 21 o4 4,4,4 4— rg8 65 Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions haneiGititip, T Lane Configurations tt tt Ideal Floti 1900±. 1900 y: Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Dete6tor (tt) 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Fit Protected 0.950 Satd:-FloWT(Ortit) z WESPerZt r 1900 ioo 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 0.97 1.00 Scenario B 9/6/2006 -7 2 704151Z742 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 10 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions --P 4- 4 A L e=Group EBT,� E BR 70th; %ileTerm; Code 50th %ile Green (s) 54.0 50th %ileTermCode:r Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 54.0 30th' %ile Term aCode Coord' 10th %ile Green (s) 54.0 10th %ile Term Codet' Coo_rda; Queue Length 50th (ft) -257 Queue`,Length 95th?(ft) *2! Internal Link Dist (ft) 5 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductrit Spillback Cap Reductn StorageiCap Redi ctni: Reduced v/c Ratio intersection Summa Splits and Phases: 1.15 Other 17: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates .IA/BL W 2139 963 450 cord` 54.0 Coord 54.0 Coord: 54.0 Coord 30 m58 179 0.96 0.88 NBR Max Mai 24.0 24.0 Max Max 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Maz Max `il 237 -294 #343 #484°'. 592 1.05 Area Type: Cycle�Length' Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset 30 (33 %0) Referehced to phase_4 8 W BT Start of Greene r Natural Cycle: 110 Contror=Type Actuated Coordinated ;3 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection Signal Delay: 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queuetshown;s maximum twoIcycles 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer ueue shown'is maximum after tWo cycles s m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 41 1 m2 GOritragi 4 m8 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Group 70th' %ile Term:Cod 50th Toile Green (s) 50th %ile Term Code,; 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile Term Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th Pile =Ter ?TCode`, Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue 'Length :95th "(ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn,Bay Length (ft)y Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage`Ca Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary" PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EBLEBR'NELA_,NETSWT SW, x Hold`Coord Coord 'Max.; Maxt 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Max",' Hofd "Coord; Coord'• •Max Max 1 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Hetcr Coordt Coord' Max Max 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 old +':Coord i,Coord t: Max Y Max 0 209 284 289 2 288 '1#441 1599 747 Scenario B 9/6/2006 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.90 0.99 0.23 Area Type: Other Cycle Length'9( Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset 43 (48 %0) Referenced tophase 2 NETari 5 Natural Cycle: 80 Controlaype Actuated Coordinated' Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection 9lgnal Delay 33 8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% Analysis Penod;(inin) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown L rn% rum after two c cles' m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Intersection 120S., ICU Level of Service D Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 EL`r?StarE.of Green F 02 372" J 05 3710 1l 7 04 53 07 08 19 mid 4€ Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 LanetGroupwaSr*fl:EBligiEBReINEL.1.2319ETRigisvv.TwasYvr- art arraw:, !at: ';,7r4ark 0 3438 4876 0 1 00 too-y 100100 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 III Intersection: E -W: ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Input Name N -S: I -81 NB RAMP Count By LIP Byl.UP Location WINCHESTER.VA Count Date 6/14/2006 1 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: I -BIND RAMP SB: 15 Min. Penod N.S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 1 7:00 0 51 0 51 0 101 0 101 123 0 9 132 0 0 0 0 284 7:00 7:15 0 68 0 68 0 123 0 123 97 0 20 117 0 0 0 0 308 7:15 730 0 82 0 82 0 127 0 127 127 0 12 139 0 0 0 0 348 7:30 7:45 0 70 0 70 0 133 0 133 143 0 27 170 0 0 0 0 373 7:45 8:00 1 0 53 0 53 0 96 0 96 119 0 15 134 0 0 0 0 283 8:00 8:15 0 40 0 40 0 104 0 104 99 0 16 115 0 0 0 0 259 8:15 8:30 0 53 0 53 0 91 0 91 96 0 16 112 0 0 0 0 256 8:30 8W5 0 64 0 64 0 83 0 83 120 0 19 139 0 0 0 0 286 8:45 A.M. Total 0 481 0 481 0 858 0 858 924 0 134 1058 0 0 0 0 2397 A.M. Total 16:00 0 144 0 144 0 128 0 128 159 0 33 192 0 0 0 0 464 16:00 16:15 0 109 0 109 0 132 0 132 169 0 34 203 0 0 0 0 444 16:15 16:30 1 0 127 0 127 0 141 0 141 162 0 32 194 0 0 0 0 462 16:30 16:45 0 126 0 126 0 118 0 118 175 0 42 217 0 0 0 0 461 16:45 17'.00 0 120 0 120 0 104 0 104 175 0 33 208 0 0 0 0 432 17:00 17:15 0 153 0 153 0 107 0 107 161 0 42 203 0 0 0 0 463 17:15 17:30 1 0 109 0 109 0 124 0 124 180 0 35 215 0 0 0 0 448 1730 17:45 0 104 0 104 0 104 0 104 147 0 28 175 0 0 0 0 383 17:45 P.M. Total 0 992 0 992 0 958 0 958 1328 0 279 1607 0 0 0 0 3557 P.M. Total I 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: I -81N8 RAMP SB: 1 Hour Period N.S. Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Len Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 1 7:00 0 271 0 271 0 484 0 484 490 0 68 558 0 0 0 0 1313 7:00 7:15 0 273 0 273 0 479 0 479 486 0 74 560 0 0 0 0 1312 7:15 7:30 0 245 0 245 0 460 0 460 488 0 70 558 0 0 0 0 1263 7:30 7:45 0 216 0 216 0 424 0 424 457 0 74 531 0 0 0 0 1171 7:45 8:00 0 210 0 210 0 374 0 374 434 0 66 500 0 0 0 0 1084 8:00 1 16:00 0 506 0 506 0 519 0 519 665 0 141 806 0 0 0 0 1831 16:00 16:15 0 482 0 482 0 495 0 495 681 0 141 822 0 0 0 0 1799 16:15 16:30 0 526 0 526 0 470 0 470 673 0 149 822 0 0 0 0 1818 1630 16:45 1 0 508 0 508 0 453 0 453 691 0 152 843 0 0 0 0 1804 16:45 17:00 0 486 0 486 0 439 0 439 663 0 138 801 0 0 0 0 1726 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: I -81NB RAMP SB: 1 (lour Period 1 N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 0 271 0 271 0 484 0 484 490 0 68 558 0 0 0 0 1313 7:00 A.M. Peak PHF 0.83 PHF 0.91 PHF 0.82 PIMP 0.88 A.M. Peak 16:00 0 506 0 506 0 519 0 519 665 0 141 806 0 0 0 0 1831 16:00 P.M. Peak PHF 0.88 PHF 0.92 PI-1F 0.93 PHF 0.99 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Input Name N -S: 1 -81 813 RAMP Count By JP 13> JJP Location WINCHESTER.VA Count Date 6/6/2006 1 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: 813: 1 -81 SB RAMP 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Lefi Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right 'total Left 'Ihm Right Total E W Begining 7.00 0 208 112 320 24 195 0 219 0 0 0 0 2 0 134 136 675 7:00 7:15 0 199 132 331 33 212 0 245 0 0 0 0 4 0 138 142 718 7:15 7:30 0 174 127 301 38 367 0 405 0 0 0 0 3 0 135 138 844 7:30 7:45 0 201 133 334 24 365 0 389 0 0 0 0 2 0 131 133 856 7:45 8:00 0 233 149 382 20 354 0 374 0 0 0 0 4 0 149 153 909 8:00 815 0 175 129 304 26 270 0 296 0 0 0 0 2 0 116 118 718 8:15 830 0 168 114 282 20 190 0 210 0 0 0 0 3 0 86 89 581 8:30 8:45 0 154 134 288 40 211 0 251 0 0 0 0 2 0 96 98 637 8:45 A.M. Total I 0 1512 1030 2542 225 2164 0 2389 0 0 0 0 22 0 985 1007 1 5938 A.M. Total 16:00 0 237 160 397 29 326 0 355 0 0 0 0 I 0 90 91 843 16:00 16:15 0 221 108 329 32 381 0 413 0 0 0 0 3 0 107 110 852 16:15 16:30 0 235 155 390 36 350 0 386 0 0 0 0 4 0 70 74 850 16:30 16:45 0 229 154 383 29 321 0 350 0 0 0 0 2 0 89 91 824 16:45 17:00 0 270 190 460 34 304 0 338 0 0 0 0 4 0 68 72 870 17:00 17:15 0 254 182 436 21 252 0 273 0 0 0 0 3 0 67 70 779 17:15 17:30 0 189 165 354 29 260 0 289 0 0 0 0 1 0 61 62 705 17:30 17 :45 0 170 124 294 31 241 0 272 0 0 0 0 3 0 79 82 648 17:45 P.M. Total l 0 1805 1238 3043 241 2435 0 2676 0 0 0 0 21 0 631 652 1 6371 1 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NIB: S6: 1 -81 SB RAMP 1 (lour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 0 782 504 1286 119 1139 0 1258 0 0 0 0 11 0 538 549 3093 7:00 7:15 0 807 541 1348 115 1298 0 1413 0 0 0 0 13 0 553 566 3327 7:15 7:30 0 783 538 1321 108 1356 0 1464 0 0 0 0 11 0 531 542 3327 7:30 7 :45 0 777 525 1302 90 1179 0 1269 0 0 0 0 11 0 482 493 3064 7:45 8:00 0 730 526 1256 106 1025 0 1131 0 0 0 0 11 0 447 458 2845 8:00 16:00 0 922 577 1499 126 1378 0 1504 0 0 0 0 10 0 356 366 3369 16:00 16:15 0 955 607 1562 131 1356 0 1487 0 0 0 0 13 0 334 347 3396 16:15 1630 0 988 681 1669 120 1227 0 1347 0 0 0 0 13 0 294 307 3323 16:30 16:45 0 942 691 1633 113 1137 0 1250 0 0 0 0 10 0 285 295 3178 16:45 17:00 0 883 661 1544 115 1057 0 1172 0 0 0 0 11 0 275 286 3002 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: SB: 1 -81 813 RAMP 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining LeR Thru Right Total Left 'Thru Right Tot al Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7 :15 0 807 541 1348 115 1298 0 1413 0 0 0 0 13 0 553 566 3327 7:15 A.M. Peak PHF 0.88 PI-IF 0.87 PHF PHF 0.92 0.92 A.M. Peak 16:15 0 955 607 1562 131 1356 0 1487 0 0 0 0 13 0 334 347 3396 16:15 P.M. Peak PHF 0.85 PHF 0.90 I'HF PHF 0.79 0.98 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Weather Dry File Input Name N-S: ROUTE 11 Count By JJP By DP Location CLEAR BROOK.VA Count Date 6/1/2006 15 Min W13: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period I3egining Left Thru Right Total Left Rini Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 28 0 48 12 60 2 63 0 65 153 7:00 7:1' 38 0 2 40 0 58 11 69 4 69 0 73 182 7:15 7:30 57 0 4 61 0 65 13 78 1 99 0 100 239 7:30 7:45 32 0 1 33 0 60 14 74 1 85 0 86 193 7:45 8:00 26 0 1 27 0 45 15 60 3 70 0 73 160 8:00 8:15 34 0 3 37 0 48 15 63 2 63 0 65 165 8:15 8:30 26 0 5 31 0 40 8 48 0 70 0 70 149 8:30 8:45 35 0 3 38 0 68 14 82 2 99 0 101 221 8:45 A.M.T 275 0 20 295 l 0 432 102 534 15 618 0 633 1462 A.M. Total 16:00 31 0 6 37 0 131 29 160 3 62 0 65 262 16:00 16:15 18 0 3 21 0 128 33 161 4 79 0 83 265 16:15 16:30 23 0 5 28 0 104 28 132 3 82 0 85 245 16:30 16:45 24 0 5 29 0 111 44 155 1 69 0 70 254 16:45 17:00 16 0 3 19 0 122 31 153 6 76 0 82 254 17:00 17:15 30 0 4 34 0 115 36 151 4 85 0 89 274 17:15 17:30 20 0 2 22 0 116 19 135 3 55 0 58 215 17:30 17:45 21 0 1 22 0 130 26 156 4 64 0 68 246 17:45 P.M. Total I 0 0 0 0 183 0 29 212 0 957 246 1203 28 572 0 600 2015 P.M. Total I Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thar Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:D0 0 0 0 0 154 0 8 162 0 231 50 281 8 316 0 324 767 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 153 0 8 161 0 228 53 281 9 323 0 332 774 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 149 0 9 158 0 218 57 275 7 317 0 324 757 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 118 0 10 128 0 193 52 245 6 288 0 294 667 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 121 0 12 133 0 201 52 253 7 302 0 309 695 8:00 16.00 0 0 0 0 96 0 19 115 0 474 134 608 11 292 0 303 1026 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 81 0 16 97 0 465 136 601 14 306 0 320 1018 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 93 0 17 110 0 452 139 591 14 312 0 326 1027 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 90 0 14 104 0 464 130 594 14 285 0 299 997 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 87 0 10 97 0 483 112 595 17 280 0 297 989 17:00 1 Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:15 0 0 0 0 153 0 8 161 0 228 53 281 9 323 0 332 774 7:15 A.M. Peak PHF PHI; 0.66 PHF 0.90 PHF 0.83 0.81 A.M. Peak 16:30 0 0 0 0 93 0 17 110 0 452 139 591 14 312 0 326 1027 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF PHF 0.81 PHF 0.95 PHF 0.92 0.94 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Input Name N-S: REDBUD Count By 33P By 331' Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date 6/15/2006 15 Minute ER: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD SB: 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 77 0 1 78 0 0 30 30 4 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 117 7:00 7:15 69 0 0 69 1 0 28 29 4 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 107 7:15 7:30 81 0 2 83 2 0 31 33 6 5 4 15 0 0 0 0 131 7:30 7:45 65 0 3 68 2 0 28 30 7 4 3 14 0 0 0 0 112 7:45 8:00 56 0 5 61 1 0 22 23 8 3 5 16 0 0 0 0 100 8:00 8:15 56 0 5 61 4 0 16 20 11 3 5 19 0 0 0 0 100 8:15 8:30 58 0 6 64 4 0 17 21 8 4 4 16 0 0 0 0 101 8:30 8:45 52 0 8 60 5 0 17 22 10 5 5 20 0 0 0 0 102 8:45 A.M. Total 514 0 30 544 19 0 189 208 58 30 30 118 0 0 0 0 870 A.M. Total 16:00 101 0 3 104 3 0 15 18 2 4 6 12 0 0 0 0 134 16:00 16:15 121 0 3 124 3 0 12 15 7 4 13 0 0 0 0 152 16:15 16:30 91 0 4 95 2 0 12 14 4 6 4 14 0 0 0 0 123 16:30 16:45 113 0 7 120 5 0 16 21 6 3 12 0 0 0 0 153 16:45 17:00 121 0 7 128 4 0 13 17 6 6 2 14 0 0 0 0 159 17:00 17:15 133 0 6 139 5 0 12 17 5 4 16 0 0 0 0 172 17:15 17:30 107 0 5 112 5 0 9 14 5 5 3 13 0 0 0 0 139 17:30 17:45 83 0 5 88 3 0 10 13 4 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 110 17:45 P.M. Total 870 0 40 910 30 0 99 129 33 43 27 103 0 0 0 0 1142 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Hegining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Repining 7.00 292 0 6 298 5 0 117 122 21 15 11 47 0 0 0 0 467 7:00 7 :15 271 0 10 281 6 0 109 115 25 15 14 54 0 0 0 0 450 7:15 7:30 258 0 15 273 9 0 97 106 32 15 17 64 0 0 0 0 443 7:30 7:45 235 0 19 254 II 0 83 94 34 14 17 65 0 0 0 0 413 7:45 8:00 222 0 24 246 14 0 72 86 37 15 19 71 0 0 0 0 403 8:00 16:00 426 0 17 443 13 0 55 68 11 23 17 51 0 0 0 0 562 16:00 16:15 446 0 21 467 14 0 53 67 15 25 13 53 0 0 0 0 587 16:15 16:30 458 0 24 482 16 0 53 69 20 23 13 56 0 0 0 0 607 16:30 16:45 474 0 25 499 19 0 50 69 21 22 12 55 0 0 0 0 623 16:45 17:00 444 0 23 467 17 0 44 61 22 20 10 52 0 0 0 0 580 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Hegining Lett Thru Right Total Left Thin Right Total Left Th ru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 292 0 6 298 5 D 117 122 21 15 11 47 0 0 0 0 467 7:00 A.M. Peak PHF 0.90 HIE 0.92 PHF 0.78 PIIF 0.89 A.M. Peak 16:45 474 0 25 499 19 0 50 69 21 22 12 55 0 0 0 0 623 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF 0.90 PHF 0.82 PHF 0.86 PHF 0.91 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: ROUTE I I Weather DRY Fil I Name N -S: ROUTE 839 Count By JJP iput JJP By l Location Winehester,VA Count Date 5/11/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thu Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thou Right Total E W Begining 7:00 33 259 16 308 21 304 44 369 13 4 4 21 56 4 54 114 812 7:00 7:15 34 271 18 323 25 316 34 375 18 5 7 30 61 3 60 124 852 7:15 7:30 47 266 22 335 26 322 39 387 14 6 8 28 60 4 66 130 880 7:30 7:45 49 243 19 311 29 305 40 374 12 5 6 23 55 6 59 120 828 7:45 8:00 1 52 226 20 298 19 299 36 354 14 6 6 26 46 6 55 107 785 8:00 8:15 46 189 16 251 14 259 37 310 15 5 4 24 41 8 45 94 679 8:15 8:30 40 144 12 196 17 235 34 286 20 7 3 30 47 9 46 102 614 8:30 8:45 42 159 13 214 12 212 31 255 14 6 4 24 52 11 40 103 596 8:45 A. M. Total 1 343 1757 136 2236 163 2252 295 2710 120 44 42 206 418 51 425 894 6046 A.M. Total 16:00 44 266 16 326 12 261 49 322 12 6 7 25 52 7 56 115 788 16:00 16:15 46 279 20 345 I5 278 51 344 13 7 8 28 66 7 65 138 855 16:15 16:30 51 286 19 356 13 286 53 352 14 6 5 25 70 4 74 148 881 16:30 16:45 60 294 16 370 15 298 50 363 10 7 8 25 70 6 76 152 910 16:45 17:00 66 307 17 390 12 289 56 357 11 9 7 27 68 8 59 135 909 17:00 17:30 1 17:15 17:45 64 50 45 288 271 259 14 12 9 366 333 313 15 11 12 280 270 259 48 40 34 343 321 305 7 4 5 7 4 4 9 7 8 23 15 17 51 39 35 5 2 3 54 49 40 110 90 78 842 759 713 17:15 17:30 17:45 P.M. Total 426 2250 123 2799 105 2221 381 2707 76 50 59 185 451 42 473 966 6657 P.M. Total I hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE66I 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 163 1039 75 1277 101 1247 157 1505 57 20 25 102 232 17 239 488 3372 7:00 7:15 182 1006 79 1267 99 1242 149 1490 58 22 27 107 222 19 240 481 3345 7:15 7:30 194 924 77 1195 88 1185 152 1425 55 22 24 101 202 24 225 451 3172 7:30 7:45 187 802 67 1056 79 1098 147 1324 61 23 19 103 189 29 205 423 2906 7:45 8:00 180 718 61 959 62 1005 138 1205 63 24 17 104 186 34 186 406 2674 8:00 16:00 201 1125 71 1397 55 1123 203 1381 49 26 28 103 258 24 271 553 3434 16:00 16:15 223 1166 72 1461 55 1151 210 1416 48 29 28 105 274 25 274 573 3555 16:15 16:30 241 1175 66 1482 55 1153 207 1415 42 29 29 100 259 23 263 545 3542 16:30 16:45 240 1160 59 1459 53 1137 194 1384 32 27 31 90 228 21 238 487 3420 16:45 17:00 225 1125 52 1402 50 1098 178 1326 27 24 31 82 193 18 202 413 3223 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 I }lour Period 1 N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Lett Thru Right Total Lett Thro Right Total H W Begining 7:00 A.M. Peak 163 1039 75 PHI' 1277 0.95 101 1247 157 PHF 1505 0.97 57 20 25 102 PHF 0.85 232 17 239 PHF 488 0.94 3372 0.96 7:00 A.M. Peak 16:15 1 P.M. Peak 223 1166 72 PHF 1461 0.94 55 1151 210 PHI 1416 0.98 48 29 28 PHF 105 0.94 274 25 274 PHF 573 0.94 3555 0.98 16:15 Y.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1