The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17-06 Traffic Impact Analysis 21 1 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing 1 1 Frederick County, Virginia 1 1 Prepared for: Located in: NV Retail 1 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22102 1 1 1 Prepared by: 1 1 PI TI T 300 Foxcroft Avenue, 304 264.27 West Virginia e 26 01 1 F 304.264.3671 1 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engneers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 1 1 September 7, 2006 1 1 NOV 1 3 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 tum over restaurant, a 5,000 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,500 square foot high tum 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 -thin, 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 inlout. 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: o Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford Crossing, o 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: 4626-1-0 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 1 1 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 11/1 -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. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P `L. l September 7, 2006 1 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 3 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Average Daily °,�T�ips P Figure 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) 6 L ci Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) 0 cz Unsignalized Intersection CU JB Unsignalized Intersection ff C(C). d eh ark Road t P H A Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and LOS A Traffic 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 7th 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 Crossing 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 390units 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 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 1 P H A Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summar A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 7 No Scale J�a c s1AS464 0. L .31.1.1‘ e SITE 0O e s 479( rip T own Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Aieragee Dini,TrirkEte P 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626- 1 -0 Page 8 "New I ntersection" Signalized S 1 tersection LOS B(B) Signalized- Intersection LOS C(C) "Suggested Improvement'" Signulizatiun Unsignalized Intersection Inters "Suggested Improvements" Signalization NB- 1 Right .Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) "Suggested Improvements" Signalization Signalized Intersection Unsign alined LOS E(F) Intersection c k a_ i F 6\ Signalized Intersection LOS E(E) !14 -PHRA r Figure 5 0 0 "Suggested Improvement'" EB 2 Left W n -1 Left, 1 Right NB 1 Left "New Intersection" SITE R ehr n oo ejfray Unsignalized Intersection m� t i 2010 Background Lane Geometry and LOS F(F h ar /ee Ton No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) c`--Denotes Free -Flow Movement A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 9 Cole 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 /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 ITT 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 II-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 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 w9pumps 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 ADT 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 SF 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 H -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" /3y -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 TRW 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 Cro sing 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 TRW ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns 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 P 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 r No Scale z$a 17) hail AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Average; l)aily�T "rips PHIS 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 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) NirAcifikelnaiicirritire P RA Figure 8a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Proposed Development) A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626- I -0 Page 15 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Average{Daily�Trips No Scale ti lt c' 1); g81 q H PH RA E 0 0 Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (By -right Development) s A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 16 Signalized Intersection f glL LOS =C(D) Si nalized Sre. In ersection LOS C(C) Signalized Inters LOS D(E) "Suggested Improvements" Signalization New Intersection" Unsignalized Intersection o m Signalized Intersection Unsignalized LOS F(F) Intersection a i 3 3 Signalized 'u 'Suggested Inlersectio`n fteroremenu" LOS D F en zLen WB Left,e Right NB -I Left PO. SITE Unsignalized Intersection t Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) "Suggested Improvements" Signal ation WB -1 Left NB 1 Right o ar] No Scale 't:Signaliieil.% "Suggested Intcrsee[ion= Inipresemems" si „eon LOS =e(li) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) =Denotes Free -Flow Movement 4 -P Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Proposed Development) P T 7 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626- I -0 Page 17 Signalized Intersection LOS F(F) J Signalized`; Inte rsection LOS =E(F) 0 Signalized Intersection OP LOS =C(D) f Signalized ntersection LOS C(C) Intersection" anterseetiou" F(F)* Signalized Intersection LOS C(D) E 0 Unsignalized Intersection "Suggested Improvements" EB 2 Len WB -1 Left, 1 Right NB I Left "Signalized f' Intersection LOS =D(E) SITE "Suggested mprovements" Signalization Unsignalized Intersection Signalized" Intersection 'LOS C(D) p et cot* "Suggested Improvements" Signalization WB -1 Left NB- 1 Right tk No Scale "Suggested Improvements Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement �i _p F igure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (By -right Development) ,4 Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 18 No. Intersection Direction Suggested Improvements (Scenarios A 13) Levels of Service Scenario A Scenario 13 w/o Improvements w/ Improvements w/o Improvements w/ Improvements 1 Route 11 /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 Southbomtd LOS C(D) LOS C(D) 3 Route 1 I /Redbud Road/NB On ramp Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(D) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) 4 Route I I /Charlestown Roac Eastbound Westbound Nonhbound Southbound N/A 1 left Nm lane 1 right tuns lane Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(C) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) 5 Route ll /Welltown Road Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 2 left lunt lane 1 left, 1 right hum Zane I left Rim LOS F(8) 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. 1 P H RA Table 3 Summary of Su¢eested Improvements 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 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, h 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, 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= 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 8 Approach Delay 27 9 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS C A 8 Intersection Delay 14.2 X 0.51 c 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, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 1137 AM HCS +T" 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 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, Nm Buses Stopp ng, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time fo 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 a 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 a 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 B 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 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Delay 16.8 X 0.59 Intersection 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 Reserved HCS 1141 Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR 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 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 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 20 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 12.3 125 36.5 13.2 Lane Group LOS D C D F 8 8 8 D B 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 I C D C C Intersection Delay 32.0 X 0.98 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 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) 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, Ns 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 B A 8 C B 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 0.98 c 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 11:37 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 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 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (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 olume (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 /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) 292 590 6 5 902 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 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 vlc 0.44 0.01 95% queue length 2.24 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.1 8.9 LOS 8 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 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 +TM 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 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) 807 115 1298 Peak -Hour Factor, 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 0.95 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 8 E F Approach Delay (s /veh) 264. 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: 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) 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 0.16 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 Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM HCS +T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Route 11 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) 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, 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, 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 0.27 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 a 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 8 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 02005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:44 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Ra nt e 1 -81 Off NB 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 To 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 0 150 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 3.3 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 8 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 8 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 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 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 0.95 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, 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 20 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 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 c 1.35 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: 9/5/2006 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 PM 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) 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 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, Ob 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 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nrn 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 13.4 241 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 8 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 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+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 a95 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 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, Qn 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 12.0 120 120 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 120 12.0 120 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 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 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 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 52.8 17.5 6.3 524 23.5 3.6 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 8 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 +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 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) 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, I1 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 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, Ns 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 c 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 +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9)5)2006 11:50 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst Agency /Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHRA PHR +A 07/20/06 AM Peak Hour Site Information Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Rf 11 Charlestown Rd 2010 Background Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South North /South Street: US Route 11 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Northbound 1 L 0.95 0 5 0 2 T 322 0.95 338 1 0 3 R 150 0.95 157 0 0 TR Southbound 4 L 65 0.95 68 5 1 L 5 T 0 0.95 0 1 T 0 6 R 0.95 0 Undivided 0 0 Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade Flared Approach Storage RT Channelized Lanes Configuration Eastbound 7 L 0.95 0 0 0 8 T 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 9 R 0.95 0 5 0 0 0 Westbound 10 L 479 0.95 504 5 0 11 T 0.95 0 5 N 1 0 LR 12 R 189 0.95 198 5 0 0 0 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration v (veh /h) C (m) (veh /h) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay (s /veh) LOS Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS Northbound 1 Southbound 4 L 68 1053 0.06 0.21 8.7 A Westbound 7 8 LR 702 496 1.42 33.59 221.3 F 9 221.3 F Eastbound 10 11 12 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 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) (vehlh) 587 69 v/c 0.38 6.26 95% queue length 1.79 48.70 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.9 2485 LOS B 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 Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 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 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, 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, h 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, Nrn 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= 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 0.85 0.53 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 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, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 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 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, Ni 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR T R L T Volume, V (vph) 285 126 621 491 214 451 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, 11 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, Ne 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 0.75 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, PE 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 8 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 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) 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 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) 473 644 0 v/c 0.79 0.01 95% queue length 7.13 0.03 Control Delay (s /veh) 35.5 10.6 LOS E B 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 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 PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd /t -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% queue length 22.14 0.14 Control Delay (s /veh) 128.1 12.0 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 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 /N8 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 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 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, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM Approach Delay 34.6 12.8 21.8 Approach LOS C 8 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, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM 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, It 2.0 2.0 a 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 12.0 120 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 3.2 3.2 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 8 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 35.0 25.8 31.6 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 28.3 X c 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 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 SB 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 approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright O 2005 University of Fl rida, All 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 4nalysis 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 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) 251 136 427 C (m) (veh /h) 459 0 249 v/c 0.55 1.71 95% queue length 3.22 27.97 Control Delay (s /veh) 21.9 372.7 LOS C 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 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information MI MI NI 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 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) 93 0 672 1118 222 1719 iii 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 1 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 I 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 M ISOI MN OM Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 240 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 a 2 3.2 Phasing 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 IN 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 535 478 1414 262 1940 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.95 0.83 0.89 0.93 l• 1 Total Green Ratio, g/C 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 2 a 2 29.3 4.4 29.6 8.9 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 c 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, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information IM MN 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 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 1 1 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 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 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 1 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 I Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 1 MN NMI Parking Maneuvers, NR, Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time fo Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru Only 07 08 Timing G= 27.5 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 III NI 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 0.29 0.67 0.89 1.02 0.93 MI 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 1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.25 0.42 0.50 0.44 Incremental Delay, d 0.3 4.2 6.9 63.8 78 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 Approach Delay 34.0 31.6 34.9 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 33.6 X c 0.55 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 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 +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 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 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM 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) 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 %//c 0.01 95% queue length 0.04 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.5 LOS B Approach Delay (s /veh) 14.5 Approach 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 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, 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 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 fo 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 a 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 B 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 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 4:13 PM Approach LOS I C B B Intersection Delay 12.9 X c 0.45 Intersection LOS 8 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 4:13 PM HCS4 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 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, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time fo 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 8 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 Intersection Delay i 13.8 X 0.41 Intersection LOS 8 Approach LOS C Copyright 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 A 8 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 a 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 Copyr,ght 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 East/West Street: Site Drive #3 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) 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 0.95 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+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information MIMEO Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour I Route 11 I -81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 11 Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 596 247 1610 1564 11 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 11 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 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= N 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 627 102 1695 1646 s Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.19 0.90 0.88 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.55 Uniform Delay, d 29.0 25.2 22.4 21.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.42 0.40 Incremental Delay, d 0.5 0.2 6.5 5.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 25.4 28.9 26.8 Lane Group LOS C C C C 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 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM 1 II HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information s NM IM 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 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 1 Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 808 429 2049 1789 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 1 I 1 Start-up Lost Time, It 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 I 1 NM 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 a 2 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 II 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 le NM INN 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 D 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 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All 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, h 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 N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nut Buses Stopp'ng, 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Delay 24.2 X =0.89 Intersection LOS 1 C Approach LOS Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved C HCS Version 5.2 C 1 8 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 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 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) 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, 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, Na 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 1 1 Intersection Delay 45.0 X 1.00 Intersection LOS 1 D Approach LOS Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved D HCS +TM Version 5.2 D 1 C Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS +Th 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 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Cm Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT fl 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 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 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 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 fl 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 a MN IM 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 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= 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 IN Total Green Ratio, g/C 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 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 +TM 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 +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information s Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wel/stown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons P roject ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A I S S N 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 I i 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 IIIIMMII Start-up Lost Time, li 20 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 1 s s 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 12.0 120 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 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 a 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 23.5 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 92.2 11.3 Lane Group LOS F D F F D A E F B 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 12:08 PM Approach Delay 317.9 824.4 112.2 83.3 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Delay 133.9 a 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, A I Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM I MEN s MI 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 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements 1 w I OM I- 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) 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, li 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 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 NM I a®® s- Mil 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 12.0 120 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 fo Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru RT 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru RT 08 Timing G= 5.5 G= 45 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 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 35 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 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 Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input 4- E 1- a a E 1 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 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 a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 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 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e O 0 0 c9 0 0 0 t W 4 5 C O N 0 4) X W 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 a d V C m E 0 0 Q) E C (0 C 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 120 120 12.0 12.0 120 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 Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Buses Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3. 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 O to' y O co co O U ti m m U Q 0 O d m J 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. 5.2 Progression Factor, PF LL a 0 U co LL C O N N m O a` 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 5.0 721 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 L Control Delay 227.3 60.0 93.9 54.2 59.7 42.7 155.5 51.0 4.6 58.5 95.9 5.3 Lane Group LOS CO 0 J O 0 O 0 0 C J 1 F E F D E D F D A E F 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 166.7 52.7 61.1 86.0 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Delay 83.4 X 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, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information 1! 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 B 1 I Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 MIN 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 NM 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 II 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 I Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 MN 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 95 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 I' N■ 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 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 279 503 108 144 1785 797 316 1942 867 a 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 U a) 0 c a) a) 0 N O 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 42.4 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 0.50 0.11 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 1 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 I Control Delay 140.8 29.3 125.9 263.1 75.0 13.7 21.7 138.1 12.2 Lane Group LOS CO 0 J a 0 CD a) c ca J 1 F C F F E B C F B L 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 +T 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 +T Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information nalyst PHR +A Analyst 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 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 Z 0 d C J w N E Z 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R 1 Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2073 88 67 2370 255 Heavy Vehicles, °/01-IV 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 12.0 120 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, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 a 2 Phasing Q1 C N 0 L d I 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 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 U U d 0 a 0 0 N C N J NI 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 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 0 0 c N E N 0 C IM 235.1 28 483.5 10.5 74.7 a 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 8 H 1 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+TM 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 Lane Group L L T T R R L L T T R R L L T T R R L L T T R R Volume, V (vph) 2 282 2 21 2 291 5 57 2 20 2 25 1 198 1 1840 9 91 1 123 2 2294 1 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 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 A A A A A A A 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 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 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 1 1 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM 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 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 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 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions 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 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 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 a 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 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 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 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 Red 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 12.0 120 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 32 3.2 32 Phasing Excl. Left Thru RT 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru RT 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 5.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 4.0 G= 530 G= Y= 6 Y= 6 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 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 2182 93 71 2495 268 Lane Group Capacity,c 267 91 415 138 91 261 534 1964 1092 103 1826 1030 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 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 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 22 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 Control Delay 211.6 48.3 339 45,3 48.1 35.3 39.6 79.4 4.5 638 192.0 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 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 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 Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 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 A Eastlwest Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 025 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 419 198 65 594 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 441 208 68 625 0 (vehlh) 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) 552 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 581 0 198 (veh /h) 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) 68 779 C (m) (veh /h) 923 196 v/c 0.07 3.97 95% queue length 0.24 76.68 Control Delay (s /veh) 9.2 1386 LOS A F Approach Delay (s /veh) 1386 Approach LOS F 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 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst Agency /Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHRA PHR +A 07/20/06 PM Peak Hour Site Information Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Rt 11 Charlestown Rd 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Charlestown Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South North /South Street: US Route 11 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade Flared Approach Storage RT Channelized anes onfiguration Northbound 1 L 0.95 0 5 0 7 L 0.95 0 0 0 2 T 854 0.95 898 1 0 8 T 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 3 R 607 0.95 638 Undivided 0 0 TR Eastbound 9 R 0.95 0 5 0 0 0 Southbound 4 L 214 0.95 225 5 1 L 5 T 657 0.95 691 1 T 0 6 R 0.95 0 0 0 Westbound 10 L 388 0.95 408 5 0 0 11 T 0.95 0 5 N 1 0 LR 12 R 126 0.95 132 5 0 0 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration v (veh /h) C (m) (veh /h) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay (s /veh) LOS Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS Northbound 1 Southbound 4 L 225 424 0.53 3.02 22.7 C Westbound 7 8 LR 540 23 23.48 67.62 10438 F 9 10438 F Eastbound 10 11 12 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, 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, 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 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 v/c Ratio, X 0.80 0.31 a 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 8 A B C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s Approach Delay 28.9 13.5 25.2 Approach LOS C B 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 +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 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 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, Nt 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, 11 2.0 20 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 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 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 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 47.3 17.3 53.0 25 56.1 14.2 Lane Group LOS D B 0 A E 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MI Approach Delay 40.0 32.0 24.5 Approach LOS D C C Intersection Delay 31.2 X 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, All 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 8 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 0.95 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 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 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 PM 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) 922 642 214 685 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 970 675 225 721 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) 402 126 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 423 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) 225 555 C (m) (veh /h) 385 17 v/c 0.58 32.65 95% queue length 3.58 70.21 Control Delay (s /veh) 26.7 14673 LOS D F Approach Delay (s /veh) 14673 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 Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A R Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 34.4 14.3 34.1 Approach LOS C B 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, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A R Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L L R R T T R R L L T T Volume, V (vph) 4 402 1 126 9 922 6 642 2 214 6 685 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 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 A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2 2.0 2 2.0 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 2 20 2 2.0 2 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3 3.0 3 3.0 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 1 1.000 1 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 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 1 12.0 1 12.0 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, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp a a 2 3 3.2 3 3.2 Phasing W WB Only 0 02 0 03 0 04 S SB Only N NS Perm 0 07 0 08 Timing Y G= 24.0 G G= G G= G G= G G= 8.0 G G= 46.0 G G= G G= Y= 6 Y Y= Y Y= Y Y= Y Y= 0 Y Y= 6 Y Y= Y Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 C Cycle Length C 90.0 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 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 N8 On Ramp 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) 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 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 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 1 1 1 Copyright Cl 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 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 NB 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 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 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 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 18 13 355 1495 7 6 1539 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 20 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 12.0 120 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 3.2 a 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 1581 6 1620 Lane Group Capacity, c 248 463 2487 145 1723 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.81 0.64 0.04 0.94 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d 34.1 25.3 6.4 11.5 21.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.35 0.22 0.11 0.45 Incremental Delay, d 0.5 10.2 0.5 0.1 10.7 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.6 35.5 7.0 11.6 31.9 Lane Group LOS C D 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 c opyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM Approach Delay 34.6 12.4 31.8 Approach LOS C 8 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 c opyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 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, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 Z0 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 1 1-is Approach Delay 48.2 32.8 47.6 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 O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 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 NMI 1 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 B EastNVest 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 N 4- C N E w N 0 6 N N E O N V t d Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R I Volume (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 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 a) U L a) T a) N 2 C 4) U N a 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 c 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 v/c 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) O r 0 as 0. Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM 1 I= 1 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 N8 On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments N w C d E *di -o t to d E 0 d 0 lc I m s 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 0 0 d lD OI C 0 U 0 d 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 C 0 E 0 0 2 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 F C F Approach Delay (s /veh) ocs 0 O s 1 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 Site Information I ntersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on Analyst PHR +A ramp Agency or Co. PHR +A Area Type All other areas Date Performed 6/30/06 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour 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 0 1 2 0 2 Lane Group LTR L TR T Volume, V (vph) 26 18 13 355 1866 7 1644 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 20 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 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 18.0 G= 47.0 G= G= Timing 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 1971 6 1731 Lane Group Capacity, c 248 424 2487 80 1799 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 a 88 0.79 0.08 0.96 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52 Uniform Delay, d 34.1 25.0 8.1 10.7 20.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.41 0.34 0.11 0.47 Incremental Delay, d 0.5 19.1 1.8 0.4 13.4 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.6 44.0 10.0 11.1 34.1 Lane Group LOS C D A B C —I-to 1 1 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 1 Copyricht 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information 1 MI IS MN NI Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /N8 on ramp 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 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T 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 MI IN Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, I1 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 20 2.0 2.0 20 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 12.0 120 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 I! 1 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp a 2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 EN NM 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 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 I 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 M I Control Delay 43.9 184.7 6.6 11.7 49.2 Lane Group LOS D F A B 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, 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 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 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) 1336 295 1865 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 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 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) 310 288 707 C (m) (veh /h) 466 0 243 v/c 0.67 2.91 95% queue length 4.79 62.26 Control Delay (s /veh) 26.8 901.1 LOS D 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 12:13 PM e TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information I 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 i a 1 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 NM Volume (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 s I 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 111111111111111111 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 388 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 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 I RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R IS MN 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 N INN Control Delay (s /veh) 175.5 628.6 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, AR Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM 1 IS MI HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 T 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 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 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 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 0 225 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 I Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB m z 0. 0 co N m m 03 m 1 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 0) c E 1- 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= 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 0 0 co a m U 0. 0 0 m c m J 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 20.0 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 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay c co 0 0 0 c 0 0 ON 26.7 68.0 48.5 52.4 47.4 Lane Group LOS C E D D D 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 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, AR Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM am as al MI s 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 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 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 1 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 12.0 120 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 3.2 a 2 II !MO MIMS OM 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 a 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 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 38.5 19.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 MN 1 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 96.7 56.4 65.2 138.4 38.7 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 Rights Reserved HCS 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 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) 1495 330 1935 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 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 a 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 Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 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 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) 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 8 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, 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 0 225 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 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 545 X 1.26 Intersection 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 Florida, A 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 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 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) 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, 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, 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 0 150 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, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 a 2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 22.5 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 48.8 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 52.1 165.4 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 X 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 T M Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 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 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 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (vehlh) 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) (veh /h) 262 v/c 0.10 95% queue length 0.33 Control Delay (s /veh) 20.2 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 20.2 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 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 Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis 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 0.95 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 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) 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 Copyrignt 2005 University of Fl rida, 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 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) 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 0.95 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 +T" 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, 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 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 a 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 Intersection Delay 22.8 X =a Intersection LOS C Approach LOS C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 8 C 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 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, Ii 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 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 Approach LOS Intersection Delay C 29.5 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved X =0.79 HCS +TM Version 5.2 C Intersection LOS C C 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 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) 227 302 1030 849 1793 147 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, 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 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= 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 12.7 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 B D A C A Approach Delay 28.5 257 32.0 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 1 C Approach LOS 1 C Copyright Cl 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 C 1 C Generated: 9/6/2006 4:25 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 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 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 0 200 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 a2 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 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 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 1 C 31.1 X 0.88 l Intersection LOS C Approach LOS Copyricht 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 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) 32.7 LOS D Approach Delay (s /veh) 32.7 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 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 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 0.95 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 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 it 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 8 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) 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 8 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 HC$ Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions EanekGroupEi.„,,MMOV:NEBLitwEBT Lane Configurations t IdealTloW, (Vphp1), 1900 A900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 lieadiridtietectof (ft) 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 Lane Util. Factor Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle (s) Recall Mode Act EffctGreen(s)] Actuated g/C Ratio v,/91 L. Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Approach Delay AO h LOS 90th %lie Green (s) 90tri °/9iliTerrn' Code 701h %ile Green (s) AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates t 4 rWSTEV. t 1' 9,007-' 1900s 7- 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 par 0 0 15 I do 1.00 1. 00 1 1 1.00 None None C-Min 'C:Min None None 432. 43.2- If56.8 58843"2 432 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 0.39 0.36" 0.62 0.29- :707,60 0.22. 0.19 26.8 21.5 23;9 377 17.9 27.4 0.0 6.0 00 om 0.07 26.8 21.5 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 =C C' C 25.1 18.7 26.5 0 B 56.0 56.0 42.0 42.0 56.0 56.0 Hold Hold Coord Coord Gapi Gap: 48.1 48.1 49.9 49.9 48.1 48.1 ,ICat ,S "cat: Scenario A 9/6/2006 Flt Protected 0.950 6:656 Saa .HM. 1719 714 e r -P rL r 'T Flt Permitted 0.950 S:5 (perin)ar;-:_1816:71810,S1810,:y1538A1719.7„ 1538 .--7.-.:',- 7 4 2 r: 2, 1 'I Z f'.' F R 1 7: Right Turn on Red Yes Yes S H..' A 33, 17; Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lin0. i. ,-_,30t. .7-';' .:fr WA- 7i' 7* ''7"1 Link D istance (ft) 1172 1862 1638 LTravel„Tirne (s ,178 282 372=.7T2 .Th Et Volume (vph) 419 198 552 189 65 594 PeeWHour Factor r. 0 ,9514 i:05 0 .9MTCTP 1,i; }1 2 .7 7 1 1 77.77 7. 7 3 2 1 Adj. Flow (vph) 441 208 581 199 68 625 lianzacoupiFlowivphy: 441--7_208' i581 f; -,;199,, it. 568&.21-.625- 11 fA Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prefe:CridiPtigrei ti--.4:'7477 77417 5 ,57 :a8!■-°1:74:.: 7 7: 7- _.tr r,, ':7::::::,,-;77E-,:r?:- ,=.:Zr.i. Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 DetebtoriPhases _,,f.44. ii Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MtriimuTiplE(S)77,7:5=loro:70.0! 7,10.67.7foiof-'1OTTH io.oyi.;_X;;;;:_.: Total Split (s) 66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 ricital,SpliV(70)7TiC2.,e, 600W 60,0%;40.0%;40.0%„160.0%1600W2., :=1 2; Maximum Green (s) 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 VelloW -c 40 40 4.0 .7::,4‘.0r1::40L/Li:z. All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 Page 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions L'a"riworoupitit.1 ig;=.4:itraiE 70th %ile Term Code ••Hold Hold' 50th %ire Green (s) 41.6 41.6 50th cY Cede Hold' Hold: 3dth %ile Green (s) 34.4 34.4 301h %ile Terpf cede Hold 10th %ile Green (s) 25.9 25.9 1011i Hold COOrd: pTiciecicileWfr. GaF.-.:;. Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 99 271 2 30 338 que (ft) jc.! 269 120 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1092 1782 CTEMIBaYlierig e: j Base Capacity (vph) 1020 1 020 667 Starvation CapReductn- Q, 0 ''0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 SIO1 RedOttnq' ,20 0T Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.20 0.60 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 06 44' irrts.ZNiattitatictirasi.w -4 04 66fer4:7:272: 66 ISI-SYTflltrn• AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates BFOXISW12 Coord Coord Gap '7 56.4 56.4 41.6 41.6 Cbord: COOrd„.' Gap'. Gap e3.6 63.6 34.4 34.4 CoOrd: 72.1 72.1 25.9 25.9 1558 7: 7 77 7 17 913 969 hez 0 0 0 rf±: :e f 0.22 0.07 0.68 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Area Type: Other "7;39 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offlet: (0°6) ere tokhatyy,..BErStart,..oLGreen. Natural Cycle: 55 9 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91 Intersection Signal 23,2=-:7 T1;77:=C- Jntethection.LOSC4: Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Service C Analysis`Petiod:(Min)155.,::;-;., ;74 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. :7 iiinaximum I Phase conflict between lane groups. Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Group :Ittac, Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)" Total Lo Time (s) Leading' Detector (ft);;; Trailing Detector (ft) Turnin Speed mph Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected SatdYFIow(prot Flt Permitted Said. Flov (perm). Right Turn on Red Satd Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link,Speedr(mph) Link Distance (ft) AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 BL`F';?EBT EBRS WBI. WBT WBRMNBL2 w NBL .INBR:".. kSER2 v tt r f4 r r 'r r r 1900 1900 1900 1900 ='1g00 C1900; 1900` 1900' 1900. 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 '50,. 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9:1,,, 92::::1%15:' 15 9 15 9 9. 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0 8507,„ 0.8507-7r;: 0 0.850' a 0'850:. 0$_ _50 0.950 0.950 0._ 950 .950 0.950 73335 3438; 1538.171'9" i 3438 _1538`: 1719. 1719-' 1538' 3335 `1538 1538 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 3335 3438 ?)7.1538 1,1719:3438 :..1719?- 1538R 3335 _1538 1538 Yes Yes Yes Yes 842 •'.132 1.00 1.00 :20 1.00 1.00 iTravel,Time (s) 3 12.8; 12.6 20 0 37._ Volume (vph) 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 57 20 25 282 21 291 Peak Hour Factor, 0.95. ,'0.95,,“,0:95.:.; (57950.95r!; ,0 95 0.95' 0:95`2 0:95 =0 95, 0 95 .;0:95 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 60 21 26 297 22 306 Lane: Group Flowj(vph) '.208. 1769? 96 ?129 2341 201 s 60 x;;21 26 297 '22' Turn Type Prot pm +ov Prot pm +ov Split pm +ov Prot Over c Proteted Phases_ 7 4;. 2 3 :8 6`' 2 .3 6 2 .w..vuwm.,, .i Permitted Phases Detector Phases y ,7 4:.r 2 i rt 3 `f 6 2 2 3 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimums lit,s;_ 100= ,10:0 10.0`'.100,,10:0 100.; 10.0„ ^,10.0'..10.0, 10.0'=;10.0' ('1070 Total Split (s) 16.0 79.0 11.0 16.0 79.0 14.0 11.0 11.0 16.0 14.0 14.0 16.0 .yr .3 Total Split M' 113:3% 65.8% 13.3 %65:8 11:7 9.2%1 -0 :2°/, 13.3 °(0 11.7, 1,1 7 13:3% Maximum 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 Yw_T elldime (s) 4.0 ;4.0, ,4 4.0 .0 ii40 •4.0 a 4.0._ 4;4.0_ ,4.0 4.Q:. 4 :4;0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead /Lag, Lad Lag '1L eads Lead C Lead „Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 ,Uefiicle Eztesinon (s) 3.0 30 30 30. 0 3 0 .3.07:-.:"3.0, 30 3.0 3.0 30 Recall Mode None None C -Min None None Min C Min C -Min None Min Min None Act Effct Green,(s)` 12 0 751' ".786.1' 11 9 75.0 89.0' 7:0 7.0 18 :9 10.0s 10 0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.63 0.72 0.10 0.62 0.74 0.06 0. 06 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.10 v /c;Ratio 0.62 ..082 0.08,. 076 .109 017, 060- 021 .0.10-'- 1.07 017 .12 Control Delay 6077 21.5 1.2 78.9 72.2 0.9 79.7 59.1 14.6 125.2 54.6 119.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0:0' 0 :0 6.6 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0:1 0.0 0:0 0.0 Total Delay 60.7 21.5 1.2 78.9 95.3 0.9 79.7 59.1 14.6 125.2 54.6 119.1 LOS r E C A E 2 F- 1 A E: E 'r B r F D F Approach Delay 24.5 87.4 59.8 119.7 Approach LOS C F E F 90th %He 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 90th %leTermCode. Max Max Coord,: Max Max Max';Coord Coord Max Max. Max Max 70th %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 Page 3 fl m2t• o6 4 o3 o4 r 14 417:4. I Is- 11e1 63 1=. 1 ,:i sszpil ;T. 79. at '5tEtr -;aritt Et-atif,N.-1S444-..7:14. ISitc-Tar:2-724464; I 08 o7 7 912.4tWir. :i7A1 aiN SINT:WI Y!'. kV 8 s r,31, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 Ikane.Group,ftaa .FtoiN B1124S N BlatiANBRA4SEEttf$E13*SE R2 70th %Ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coore Max; Max Max: Max 56th %He 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 5091%ileTermTCode Max. Hold Coord Max. -Max ;,i,. Max Coord Coord ,,I, Max Max Max- Max 30th %He 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 3 Oth ferrIii;pod Max:. Hold 'Coord-... Max Ti. Maxl.Mak.:CocWd.COore,..; Max Max Max.- Max 16th %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 1 Othyolle•Terricodg ,i1;:„ Max :.Hold COiSid;i'r Max 1: Max tdbr477COord?, Gap' Max Max 7, Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 519 0 99 -1074 0 46 16 2 -131 16 -176 Queue terigthi95th ryl 22' BaO J14; #197 r.T. iY18J. 43 :7f; ,T.r-24::: #222 44'. #359 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 ,t W(e 57 Base Capacity (vph) 354 2152 1131 172 2149 119 100 100 262 278 128 273 Starvation Cap7RedaCtrii 0 ,41...; ..0--7- -07, _-c:.<i O't. ti- 100! 0 0 :t .041-'' ,7 0 0 -3 t :0 SiT;Illback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL67age F.,.',:1201W. --0,:: 7 Ot.,7,2.. 7 0 k.v, 0 ctiji; 0 :J.? ::0 ;t, 0.., :7: 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 6..52 0.08 0.75 1.14 0.17 0.60 0.21 0.10 1.07 0.17 1.12 IhtersectItin1SurnmaniVSitztTh4TV StaR.t., Area Type: Other Cycle, Ilength:1 "14 :;C Actuated Cycle Length: 120 offe (ocyarRagiencataitibaseINK. ;71_ Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type A 17: L.. r5\ Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.12 Iriterseetion,-SrgiralDelay: 66. re,:lnt6rgebtign'LOS: acf 1. Intersection Capacity Utilization91.8% ICU Level of Service F 'AnalYgis;Peridd (min),.15: 4„ '7 r„, Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically fbieu maximum after tWO:c*Y61117;„ Lri =7. v 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 17cQueue maximum 4 2. its n Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 —to Scenario A 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 3 3L,t ;;EB.T tt+ 1900'7 1900,, 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 505 0 0 15 9 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.950 1719 3435 0.078 :;14:151435'i= !EBR. 7 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 Lead %Lag Lead •fi-• Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Vehicle.Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max Act Effct Green_( _:72 5 72 5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.81 0.81 v/c Ratio 0.81 0:57 Control Delay 36.0 3.6 Queue Delay 20.4 0,6 Total Delay 56.5 4.2 LOS:, E A Approach Delay 14.2 Approach LOS` 90th %Ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 90th' %ile Term Code; Max Coord 70th %ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates BL Lane,,Group,LarA,> a Lane Configurations Ideal Flow Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Flt Protected Satd Flow (prof) Flt Permitted Satd Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd�-Flow Headway Factor LinkSpeed(mph)• r Minimum Split;( Total Split (s) TOlal'$plit %FT Maximum Green (s) YeIlow%Time (s)•U:i, Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Distance (ft) 259 Travel •Time (s) :3:9' Volume (vph) 355 1495 Peak:Hour Facfof' 0 -95 0 95; 0795 Adj. Flow (vph) 374 1574 7 Lane Group "Flow:(vph) ,1;374 158 0!, Turn Type pm +pt Protected :PIii6 S. 7 r °4 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) a= 1.00 1.00 Perm 1619 24:5 6 1539 350 26 18 13 0 0 i 9550:9,5 ,0 95 0.95 =..0.95 =0?95 95 =0.95' 6 1620 368 27 19 14 0 0 Free Prot 2.0 Yes 1.00 ,30'= 417 1.00 tat r 1900 1900 -1900A)900' 1900 1900 ',1900' 1900'" 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 56 20 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 -15 9 15 15 9, ,15 1 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.968 0.950 0.963 0751 687 0.1 0.963 2901 34 71538 0 :1687 .a 0 0 0 Yes 190 f 14� 1.00 v 1.00 1.00 1.00 X45 M 301 r 995 4 any. ,1 .tea 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100 100 r 10.01::.-: 10.0 10.07 250 76.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 0.0 14.0 140 0.0 0.0 0.0 7:8°70784.4% 070 %':5fi 7% 56:7% 0 0 15 6% 15:6% 0 .0 6 /0 726:6 5 470 .6% 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 ,470777 4 0 X4: f ForTh 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lag=__ .flag:,, Yes Yes 30 `3.0 C -Max C -Max 48.8 T. 48.8 90.0 0.54 0.54 1.00 '0'.021 .0:87 `0.24 2.0 9.5 0.2 0.0 0.0- 0.0 2.0 9.5 0.2 A A°- A 7.8 A 45.0 45.0 Coord Coord*. 45.0 45.0 W;BT lWBF NBL2iL NBL °NBR $EL SER !9 Free 30 30' Min Min 9:5 0.11 0.31 34.7 34.7 34.7 C 8.0 8.0 Hold-- M ax' 8.0 8.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 :9 Page 6 1 m2 Ix and q m5 m7 {f o8 I�� 25 s iv 1,15-1=1.2-a- 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 Lahei_Group., 70th %ile Term Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %pile Terni Code' 30th %Ile Green (s) 30th %ile Term.Code' 10th %ile Green (s) 13.1 10th %ila Terff Code 'Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 Queue 'Length_95th (ft):m #269 Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn' Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 482 Starvation Cap Reductn 106 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Stowage Cap Rediictn Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 Intorsaction' SuRlrrma Area Type: CycleLength: °90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates '1 t Scenario A 9/6/2006 BT EBR VVB[WWBRMWBRg NBL2 1A N B 1=iir, NBR SE' SER' Max. Coord'' Coord Coord Hold :Max 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 Max Coord Coord Coord Hold' Max 18.3 70.0 45.7 45.7 80 8.0 Gap; Coord;-'' Coord Coord' Hold Maix',. 72.5 53.4 53.4 5.5 5.5 Cord Coord Coord Gap Gap 96 0 56 0 24 m1 #121 m0 62` 179 1539 915 Other 2767 0.76 0.04 0.87 0.24 0.31 Intersection LOS.i6 ICU Level of Service D Offset :.31 (34 Referenced to;p 4 EBTL and 8 W BTL {Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated Coordinated.-: Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection _Signal Delay: 1 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% Anal UPeriod;(min);15: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is two cycle's: 's"' 3 `.'s�a m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 8 \b. 01 t 03 -0 04 33trcdt '1''-- g I 427er;ki .-xl 74,Sl'er C.. f... 4 06 VA 4-, la 08 5711K”-t 33 ""ar P 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 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Lane;.GrouPk:piCal-awa L.,..i.crdEBTzlaRYAWBMWBTL ••,,,,..VV,BIR. •,NBtf-ONBTeS ,NE3RWASBUSt'SBW.,...„.aSBR 70th %Ile Term Code COord. Max Coord. •1-lold. Max Max 50th %Ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 50th %ile Tert'Cdde r Coord:- Max Coord Hold Max Max 30th %He Green (s) 36.6 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 :-.Coofrat Max Coord7 .1, Hold Maxi--. Max 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 So6rd 4 i-- 23 7 Maxi Coot? •L• hi•kt,..: Hold Max: Max 400 -154 325 132 -545 A rh#294 #730 2 \',L =::,T ji .;;;212 #764 753 540 407 2e6 1452 1538 290 2025 554 503 O 0 48 0 166 0 42 't• 261'ilf z.1. r. :Y 1...■ 5 1::12; :In :17 ■il +1 4 7C? 0.97 0.45 1.07 1.06 6.2 1.e3 30th %ile Tairn:Codel: 10th %He Green (s) 10th °/211e Teilt:CO'de Queue Length 5 (ft) Queue Length795th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) T u rn,Say (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Ca Spillback Cap Reductn Stotage:201Fieductri: Reduced v/c Ratio Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates IhterseCtiOn1Siimmary:--142# Area Type: Other Cycle,Length: 9CiTt 77. Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offiet062.(40%), Referenced•to of Green Natural .7.7: r Natural Cycle: 120 :V Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.41 htereethiaii'siuffir Dela /3:7 jolLigeaii5±i Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F Arialisis:Period; Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. •::j shown ;isirriaxim Lim after two cycles 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates LanetGrouPMA-11S--frsiEBitl&EBB:*:ANBLAVV,STRNBL=44NBR 7 P 9 ..YX-Itigitg4-l-l'n 4 1;2-,it c;.' --4,-.41:f Lane Configurations +t tt ti r Ideal FloW(vplipl), 1900% .1900l 1900 1900 1900 1900. Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft)-:, l'. 50 .i_ 50 50 50, Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning sReedtthoh) ,}9::Z,,,15;:: 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt :r 0850 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. F15W(OiCit);2., 7 T 0 0 3:438:1, 3335 1538: FltPermified 0.950 sata: All,c 70 3438y 3335 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd.FlOWT(RTOR)T -7 :1-.1: 7, 4 1 77 7 TT Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LinIcSpeed,„(mphy 45!.4 •L'ir-4,,,';.;3,77 Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 TfavekTime-(s) 11-1:,:. Voldme (7Oh) 161 0 6 fge '566 izfi Fraak1;1 0,95;76:95; 095 0195 Y 0.95)7'74; lli. =-Lfr,I." V-T-r.- iTz, t-3. Adj. Flow (vph) 1695 0 0 1646 627 260 L i n e G r O r p t l e w 1 0 7 1 5 0 7 1 8 9 5 T 7 7 0 3 0 f 0.! 1 1-..7-,(1: 7 -:"-l Turn Type Perm Priiie il .c.t8 c*..... Permitted Phases 2 Retp59.(lempesi*&:37 :i..;L::: Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MinimumSPit (s)3 10:0- et t 1010 10:0TP:103..,.-:::::c!' Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 Total SpItt(%)':,...; i ...67.8%t-,..0.0°/ 07 ll0.09k:67.8°/:::-3212% 32:2%' a Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 frenOWTiFeW,.7.7 p:- "r:=7: 1:7: t. .1: AIrRedTime (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 likad/Legt Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s)7 :0: Recall Mode 'C-Max C-Max Min Min Act EffctGreen.(S) .r.;. .'4!: 59 0 230: 23.0 AcTuatecgio 0.66 0.66 0i6 0. scii:e:Ritio7.::‘ 0.76 073 ,0.74' '063 Control Delay 6.7 1 .8 34.5 31.6 QUeUe Delay 0.3 t' l. cl OA 0.0 0.5' Total Delay 7.0 2.2 34.5 32.1 LOS A 7 A C C. Approach Delay 7.0 2.2 33.8 Ariprdacti,LOS A A C 90th %Ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 90th Toile TeyrnCOde Coordl. Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 10 4 o2 —11 otl ttL 61firr-1#Sk7r,!..W. ilL P.A I I- 08 GlriSeilna±tiflItlitteatrare re a'We—ajlrL. z' a 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 Splits and Phases: t 4— 41 Lane%,Groupki4v.SMTAEBTMEBEtSWBILVWST Blzez±.NIBRigx'; !PK ,Lt Taxifirgeg Z1.3.41§.;.,., 70th.cYoile Terni Code Coord:? Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 50th %Ile TeliirCide 7 Coord 7 -c- 1 Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 58.0 58.0 20.0 20.0 30th %ile.Terni Code i Coord i--4..' Coord Gap 60'1 10th %ile Green (s) 61.9 61.9 16.1 16.1 10th %Ile TorMcCode21- -,."'-:;;;,c Coord Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 4 162 113 QueLleieifgfti:915(ft)7i ,I, 1:1'.-:;: 221 193 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Tu r n c lil a y _L en g t h i(f t )1: t, --,,;',,f,"-;j ,--:..14: 4 Base Capacity (vph) 2253 2253 926 448 01 C 7i,-,.., :A Ts, ',:i'. Spillback Cap Reductn 7 90 0 35 Storage CapReductriTy. 0 t-'47,1): ;-;,:ft-..,0 2 .il0:- 2}...;;!0 ::::"7: ..:::;;L: Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.63 17: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Intersection-ASurnrnarm.44, Area Type: Other CicleilTeng 77'7 Actuated Cycle Length: 96 Offia17130'(33%); to:Ohase and;8:WBTII.Start.ofiGreent. Natural Cycle: 50 antrorTy0e:-,AcCiated,DEZ7diFate17-7 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 IntelSeCtion.Sidnal Delaj:11 671. -7- 77i 4 Intersection LOS:B:r:c..f.L. Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis ,Peridd(niin)15:°;" 74:-. ctic 7 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions lTa7ceTG(oupf,- „,EBRAMELiIIMETFtiSKirk.a.SWR- Lane Configurations viii r vivi 44 ++t r Ideal Flow (vPhPI) 1900 --.1900 1900 1900_3 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 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 Turning Speed (mph) --:15 -9..:1?,-15;,7 ..2. 9. Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.9 1195 0.91 1.00 Fri r '.0:.850, g-;::7 "i'-'-'.--:-:-' ;5"--," 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.956 salp.'Flovv (prog i-,,,...:.-3335LE-15333354-73 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Stad._Flow,2,(Rerm) .8,635-71538:;0385"' t3488, Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Para. 1- c;w03TPR): t 7:cr:r [1:7;r:-:'-t:!- IT:if ilict1111:: c 61 .',-,;.".T Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 Tief 1.00 1:66 1.00 Link Speed criiiiiii 45_ 45 .;:f:-- 44 ';gif' it:: Link Distance (ft) 1445 1679 827 TriTel:Tine IT,W r32r8TV'Tcr-725:4:TT:. 12-5 .±-::icc ;j 477: kg t 7.:2 Volume (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 Pe 0195?',-,50,95f.' 0 :0:952,t; ?.7-',"; __:r•-r i- 7 '1,': ::-'1-:. 4 ,±1 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 220 694 894 1792 99 LanTGroUri-Flow (vrih)7 226 V6947-117894:i41 7.92(1 99 Turn Type custom Prot pm+ov Protected Phases i r 'T 7 n 5 7-173-7 5' 77-77-7 2 ,7-7 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detectorr_Phases:f _-;'--r:e2.!'"-:17.-4 5. '.5Fi -1 28 '.z77 ini'; ;;;.-17 7. nt..L..:9. Cif' Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Mininium spk(sFri 017a 0 0.0 4 0.0 07 :tfl 027: 10 -9 777 Total Split (s) 23.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 34.0 23.0 5 7.0 iliOtl SPlit(°/0)t.: 36:7W=36:7%07.8W-25.6%:, 63% `,.-:,,'7.7"-J--.-tETt Maximum Green (s) 17.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 28.0 17.0 51.0 Y 16w ,Tiiiii 2 :4.0r:,74r0'r i4 4.0rzif0r r 4 7 .0 2 4:0•---;‘,,:, 42' 7 TMTZ,- 7 ir All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Liead/Lab''' Jr 'Lead 1-"Aert' Lag 77 'f'' 7. t r Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes VetiiCle:EXteriiiin701, 72 T8T0:1 7 30 :1:310: Recall None C-Max C-Max C-Min None None None Act Effct (i) 7 11.6 90.0 290 37.4: 53.6 z Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.4 0.59 ■i/c Ratio 0.38 0.14 =0.65 0.81 v17 087= 0.11- Control Delay 36.3 0.2 27.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.3 0.2 27.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 LOS :t=c:". .D c::= c: C- A Approach Delay 15.7 29.7 29.3 Approach LOS 90th %Ile Green (s) 12.3 27.0 27.0 27.0 32.7 12.3 51.0 90th cyJle Term Code- Gap Coord Coord "Coord: Max -Gap Hold 70th %ile Green (s) 10.7 27.0 27.0 27.0 34.3 10.7 51.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Ilanearoupittie ,EB BR, 70th %ile Term Code Gap Co Ord 50th %ire Green (s) 9.6 27.0 50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 8.5 27.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Cobit 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 27T0 10th %ile Term Code Gth Coord Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 0 OU'eua Length 95th.(ft) --i-; 73 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1365 ,NEL 51,5r. miteit ih.r Coord Coord "Max Gap Hold j- 27.0 27.0 35.4 9.6 51.0 Coord Coord Max. Gap ,Hold 27.0 27.0 36.5 8.5 51.0 :OpordCooid4 Max- Gap. Hold 27.0 27.0 38.0 7.0 51.0 Gap"-11 Hold, 162 214 333 8 193 265 #462 1599 747 :2:'n SIE-VitIO-ricap 704 1538 107 -a 0 Spillback Ca Reductn 15- r -617 10' eductw'r 5 1108 2052 04 Base Capacity (vph) Sterag et ''Ft d 0 T. a 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.14 0.65 0.81 0.87 6.11 jhtersectiomSu m manirt.„atl Area Type: Other Cycle 90 ThTh2 C Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Off178 and;5:NEL-7Start of,Green Natural Cycle: 60 ColitrofType": Actuated-CoordinatecN:-.- Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection SifiaIOeIay 28:1 c LOC Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C AnalysisPeriodynip115k .4 '-Z,L214, ?41i:e: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. QueueshownrnaximurnaftertwocycIes 1. Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 02 07 ays' 05 33r1140Wst Aat:Aw,,,,,g;z,V1a4 7 04 5711 ::04,...graae,, r 08 341i557ca.:5555,5 Scenario A 9/6/2006 z Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane=Group Lane Configurations Ideal Flow'(vphpl) Turning Speed (mph) LaneiUtil ,Factor- Frt FIt.Protected` Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted': Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factor.;- Link Speed (mph) Link Distance Travel Time (s) V_olunie (vph) Peak Hour Factor Adj,lFlow (vph) w Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 BL, NEL n` NETNSW S1/)/ tt t14* 1900 1900.: 1900 ".1900 1900' 1900 15 9 15 9 1:00 1..00 1 00 "0 95' 0.91' 0.91' 0.865 0.988 Scenario A 9/6/2006 0 1565 0 3438 4881 Sign Contro' IntersectioneSummar Area s Other Control Type: Unsignalized IntersectionCapacity Utilizat(on 52.200 Analysis Period (min) 15 Level of Service A AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions —AC —to 41— 41/ tgane:fOroupaT;4. 4-gaawaitiEuthweTfr 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 1 firn 4 AEBT ,WSTAVVEiFT4I8VVC c." ref 1 70th %ile Tern) Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 65.2 5001%ile Telm Code Gap' 30th %ile Green (s) 56.8 30th %ire Term Cade:' Gap 1btli %ile Green (s) 47.7 10th: %flegettricode Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 457 ,Qiietielkength 95ifi y, #814 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1:14.1.Pi710e(1);-- Base Capacity (vph) 1055 Stang! on p Reductp 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage•CaptReductri,l'?=L Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 InteriedtiOn-SUrnnarY rt ;17 f galcif t tn.na Area Type: Other QYSQi P9iliJfl t C Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset :0 (0%)'13RefeTeTFid to phase 6:W B of Green f'c Natural Cycle: 60 dontrelqipe:ACTUited-Chbrdiriated.i.:r'.- Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 InterseatiorySigrialiDelayT,22.43:2K4 (.7,:::',IiiferliCtihrt:LOS: rit a41:-; Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Aria Ijiiii7PIT-iga7(Friiii)7167-E37:' 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. (TCYCIpieLsbowniipFilifiMusaltery ,t Phase conflict between lane groups. S lits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4— L Max' Chord Coord Hold. Hold 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 Gap Coord CoOrd''' Hold Hold 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 Gip? ChOfhi. Coord 'Hot& Hold 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 Gah:CToh:rd' Coord Hold -j-;126id_ 253 253 0 66 186 408 341,", 40t ;5119 351: 1092 1782 1558 4 4/ 1055 709 684 1002 1002 0 ".±::."-t. 97 0 0 0 0 0 L 7, a r-9,17ti 0 7:f it 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 Scenario A 9/6/2006 AY" Page 2 06 04 66 s:';.:.7-;::-77.,Z*- 1,- 26:7:5Y‘2; .71. g 4 91 06 L 71; 5'8F:tTW,-:ciriO17.37-ejLqik2rat4TWt;-l:aW:r:;:L.ffe'T'i7-Wr-L ;--7.c4r 0.1 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 firn 4 AEBT ,WSTAVVEiFT4I8VVC c." ref 1 70th %ile Tern) Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 65.2 5001%ile Telm Code Gap' 30th %ile Green (s) 56.8 30th %ire Term Cade:' Gap 1btli %ile Green (s) 47.7 10th: %flegettricode Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 457 ,Qiietielkength 95ifi y, #814 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1:14.1.Pi710e(1);-- Base Capacity (vph) 1055 Stang! on p Reductp 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage•CaptReductri,l'?=L Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 InteriedtiOn-SUrnnarY rt ;17 f galcif t tn.na Area Type: Other QYSQi P9iliJfl t C Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset :0 (0%)'13RefeTeTFid to phase 6:W B of Green f'c Natural Cycle: 60 dontrelqipe:ACTUited-Chbrdiriated.i.:r'.- Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 InterseatiorySigrialiDelayT,22.43:2K4 (.7,:::',IiiferliCtihrt:LOS: rit a41:-; Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Aria Ijiiii7PIT-iga7(Friiii)7167-E37:' 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. (TCYCIpieLsbowniipFilifiMusaltery ,t Phase conflict between lane groups. S lits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4— L Max' Chord Coord Hold. Hold 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 Gap Coord CoOrd''' Hold Hold 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 Gip? ChOfhi. Coord 'Hot& Hold 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 Gah:CToh:rd' Coord Hold -j-;126id_ 253 253 0 66 186 408 341,", 40t ;5119 351: 1092 1782 1558 4 4/ 1055 709 684 1002 1002 0 ".±::."-t. 97 0 0 0 0 0 L 7, a r-9,17ti 0 7:f it 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 Scenario A 9/6/2006 AY" Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Gfoup Lane Configurations tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 Detector (ft) 0 0 Turning Speed(mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 Flt Protected Satd' Flow (prot). Flt Permitted Said Flow (perm)_ Right Turn on Red Satd Flow (RTOR)r; Headway Factor Link Speed (mph);; Link Distance (ft) Traiel;Time (s)` Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Lane Gioup Flow;(vph) Turn Type Protected Phases; Permitted Phases Detector, Phases .7 Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s),` Total Split (s) Totil'Split 7 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead_ /Lag_ Lead -Lag Optimize? VehicleiExtension (s) Recall Mode Act Effct Gre Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Delay' Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %Ile Green (s) 90th %ile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EBL$ EBT ,EBR WBL',,WBT1 >WBR NBL2fA,NBLi NBR` SEP 0.950 '3335 3438?: 0.950 3335 3438 r_ tt r 1900 1900' 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .50!. 50 ..50 -50`- 0 0 0 0 15 9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.850:Y- .0:850e 0.950 1538!: '1719;73438' 1538_ 0.950 3 8 °.1719 34 387" 1538 Yes Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 228 1.00 1.00 1.00 833 ]2s6 88 67 2267 255 0 95 x..0:95 t.0.957, 0695 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 .tt 285 ,2139:= 93.: 71, ..2386, 268 rm :51. r3i Prot pm +ov Prot pm +ov Split 2'' 3 a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100 10 OA 100 1100r�1 0:072:1 00 100 x,.10:0_ 17.0 83.0 12.0 10.0 76.0 15.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 1;4$2 %,16912 /0 10:0% 8.3% 63.3 12.. ,4710 0 %;:1,0:0 8'.3 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 40r 4 T� 40 40 2.0 40 ,..:40. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 '.3 0 30 °_30 _•_3: 30_" 3 30 30 30'. 30 ;`30 None None C -Min None None Min C -Min C -Min None Min Min None 130 79 :0 90'9 6:67" 72.0 831., t 79' :79 13.9 11.1 111 13_0 0.11 0.66 0.76 0.05 0.60 0.69 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.11 0 79 0;95' 0 081;1 0.83' 0 24 `x' -0.45 027 0.15' 1.1'4 023 1 68.5 29.0 0.9 114.4 101.4 1.2 66.5 59.5 25.1 142.0 54.9 135.1 :0.0 0 :0' 0.0" 0.0 18:5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OM 0,0 0.0 68.5 29.0 0.9 114.4 119.9 1.2 66.5 59.5 25.1 Lead 'Lag Lead' `Lag 32.5 C--. 11.0 77.0 6.0 Max Max _Coord' 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 Max 4.0 108.1 F. 70.0 Max' 70.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 I y i 4 4 r '1900 1900': 1900.: 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50' 50 50 0 0 0 0 15 15' 9 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.850 0.950 0.950 0.950 x1719 '1719: 153 3335 0.950 0.950 0.950 1719'1719 15 3335 1538 =`.-1538 Yes Yes 12 148 1 0e 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SERMSER2 r 1900: 1900 4.0 4.0 50 '50 0 0 9 -.9 1.00 1.00 0.850.0 :850 ::1538-11538 30 r 30 882 1668 372 2" `9'__ 48 29 28 333 30 333 c,0.95; "0.95 20.95 .0.95 51 31 29 351 32 351 351_ 32 -351 Prot Over 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0: 1060 i 10T0 15.0 15.0 17.0 12.5% 14:2% 9.0 9.0 11.0 4. 2.0 2.0 2.0 A E E, C 53.7 D 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Max Coord' Coord,. Max 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 142.0 54.9 135.1 F D F 134.9 F 9.0 9.0 Max Max 9.0 9.0 11.0 Max 11.0 Page 3 t fr o2 m6 4 03 0 o4 12 m7 4a- o8 17.0.1..-‘, 76 la:4 7 t7:72.7‘-c-:; --7-T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions LaneTG WEE3M 70th.%ile Term Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 11.0 50th -%ile Tgrriipbde. Max 30th %iie Green (s) 11.0 80thYpile Term Code idth %ile Green (s) 10th %ile Cbdel Queue Length 50th (ft) QueiLe Lehgth:95th:(ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Ti_i Base Capacity (vph) Sla air S p iTib ck Cap Reductn atgage Reduced Cic Ratio S lits and Phases: -0 C lit- 4 E3Irm E B Rird/VS_EfRNBTOY B RE) B il:24211N BiTt Max •Cpord::: Max Max Max Coord Coord 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 Max Coord h Max Mai,: Max Coord 'CoOrdl S ERIZSE R2 Max Max, Max 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 Max Tr Max' Max Max 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.6 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 Max Max Coord t Max Max Max t Coord. Coord Max Max. Max Max 11.0 77.0 5.5 4.0 70.0 9.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 9.5 9.5 11.0 Max. Hold.:CoOrdy Max -Max MaxCoord Coord Max Max -Max Max 112 725 0 56 1148 4 39 23 10 -164 23 -217 #176 ;#9331-- 12 #1447.#1282 17e-t 56': #498, 762 753 802 1588 361 2263 1189 86 2063 1135 115 189 309 142 299 ooj 7 91 1 T 6:117 ;I:CT:_;I:f 0 0 6 6 o 6 6 0 0 o p 0.79 0.95 0.08 0.83 1.20 0.24 0.44 0.27 0.15 1.14 0.23 1.17 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd Scenario A 9/6/2006 Intersection:Sum maryc 2.ty-_A-ttfer,„.„4-W-tf-tV 34: zsaitilt,sl:Etjall,ta Area Type: Other ;Cfele Actuated Cycle Length: 120 C2ffiet:,0"(0%); Referenced toptiaSe.2:NBL-,-S15F-taG'reemc.::::it- rtn Natural Cycle: 120 Control TyPe:tAdtuatedtCool -t-; ft Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.17 Intersection,SignarDelay::790 y...Cs77,71; Intersectign,C Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F eir Li; 47,; Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. t3L_Ot cycler 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. QueuershownTisrmaximUTh afteTtwo:cYcles,•: PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 Lane Configurations Ideal TIOW (vphpl) 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 Lane Util..FaCtOr 1.00 Frt Fit' Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 ganeiGroup .,.„,„_i,,EBLS)EBVivveTt Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1810 Headwa it 1.0077 1 00 Link Speed (mph) 45 LinkiDistance•(ftY< 166T fTavei Time (s) Volume:(vph).: 0:; Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 A FloWi(vpii) 1578 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1578 Sigri,Conttel- _t tt r 1900 1900 1900'. 1900 t 1900 9 15 9 1.00 0.95 -100 1.00 tou." 0.850 0.865 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 3438 1538 0 1565 45 35 1172 I:2; 1075,:-.. 47.a 4„; 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a638 1638 57 0 66 fjee 'stoty.:1E=.= -Sat Scenario A 9/6/2006 74. Intersection3Stimmary rea,Tyrief,T; Other Control Type: Unsignalized ICU Level bfLServide Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 3 Lane Configurations ►'j Tt+ Ideal Flow (vph 1900 1900 1900' Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector(ft) ;50 .50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 Tyrning:Speed_(mph), 7, 9- Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0998=`' Flt Protected 0.950 Satdi' Flow.(prot) 77 1.1 7.19 3431.x- Flt Permitted 0.078 Satd: Flow (perm) 141 343_! Right Turn on Feed Said:" Flo Headway Factor Li� it Speed "(mphi). Link Distance (ft) Travel Thielsr, Volume (vph) Peak'Hou Facto fl Adj. Flow (vph) Lane_Group Flow. {vph) 606 2001" Turn Type pm +pt Protected,Phases t Permitted Phases Detego ePhases."" Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Spht(s)7C Total Split (s) 11otalSpt7( 'x" -t Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s)- All -Red Time (s) Lead /Eag' Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 1.00 1.00 1.00 51.0 51.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56 5617o/ 'c0.0% .11.1 %71;1.1 0 0% 0 0%' t0'0 /d' 450 45.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Laa Laa• 259 576 1871 30 079.5 0 95. 70 606 1969 32 None C -Max 76 0 76 0 0.84 0784 1,09 069= 195.0 8.0. 271.6 11.1 Recall Mode Act Effct Green;( Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS'' F B Approach Delay 71.6 Approach LOS E 90th Toile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 90th: %ile Term Code Max Coord 70th Toile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 4 1 1 I WBL .M.BTO„ WBRr= !NBL2aiNBL Yes Yes C -Max C -Max 47 0 47.0 90'0' 0.52 0.52 1.00 024' ,1.03` 031' 8.5 37.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 37.8 0.4 A .D; A 29.9 C 45.0 45.0 Coordi Coord1 45.0 45.0 ?4 r 1900 1900 1900 1 1900 1900 -,1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.o 4.0 50 50 50',, 50 '50:' 0 0 0 0 0 15.:. 4:1;,15: 15: 9 15 9.- 1.00 0.95 1.00 T.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.850-. 6:970= 0.950 0.963 1719 =•73438 :1538' 0 1690_:; 0.104 0.963 )88','3'438 1538 0 _16904 Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 J 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 057;:, 53.9 0.0 53.9 53.9 4.0 4.0 Max i•- Max` 4.0 y 4.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 6 1 1 02 10fsl: t la BOrs,V7-7"--ICSI'fflai.2-X'r.`r.Liztc-iir;:itkr:ivrW-P2ItTIRF::!clf?.. r: 4,1 05 3 07 29 si.t.:...2..r. -.:.47_,F... .71.r.AIrr n5t-yen .ri, V' 08 RI 1011-_ IM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates i_ 4 10th %He Green (s) 23.0 74.0 1011i;%ile Term Cod Max Coord Queue Length 50th (ft) -349 132 OueVe'Length95th, (ft) rti#350:°,M130 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 Tu2:iI3'a Base Capacity (vph) 557 2899 SlarvatioriCap"Reductm‘k.)62, 873; Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.53 0.99 S lits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd w_ 4\ '1 lianearoupS111142-.};f4EBL 70th %Ile Term Code Coord Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 50th Max Coord Coord r Coord Mar Max 30th %He Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 30tli%ileTermCode Max.:COOrd Coord Cdordt.' MaX: Max 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 2 619 0 33 1539 915 337 98 1795 1538 124 (:)2■,;...0121.•',..r.: 0 0 0 0 HO 07--T1 0 7:51- 0.24 1.03 0.31 0.57 IntersectioSurnrriarYniLTh Area Type: Other C761 6Ceddifir Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offet: 31"..(349/0),.Relet_encTedio Natural Cycle: 110 CoKff6itige7A 2 1 11,7f777 fTh Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09 Delaji:'51787; Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. F two7c7eles: 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. E cuiTieishov,iirils. two cycleir'S,C±::::?: m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 1 1-aneiGrouppleaPcesEB112-10EBleiuEBREAVVBEWNBICABEwNBKANI3Jis'ia:NBRati(SBISSlialSBR Lane Configurations tt I vi 14 4 rf IdealFlow (v0nP1): 1900 1900 t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19001 1900 1900 .1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50. -1 -1 50: 50 T.y. 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TY1FIlliaS1 v-4 1 5:3: 4, 9:-::-:":' 15 7 15 97---- 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt:L; .1 :IT 0a5ti, 'if I i., 7:. 0850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Saki:- Flow (prot) 4.: .T,-: 0-Jv 3438 1538::“1719'1 3438 0 07'2: -:7:0: 7- ff 0 1719: Flt Permitted 0.091 0.950 Sat& FloW (perm) -•'-.L '0'73438= :::1538t" ;id 65:- 3438 22 OTT 0 6:••-••: 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes SateFloW (RTOr)i±.. t .c-:-..,-' -it: ::872;;;-t-: z:'-: :::;e:' ""72 7- "2=7 10 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 kinkiSpeed.(mPh):‘,'};17:4[::::,kr:f4 -t 'il.;-`.-45 2 !2. i J 2 7 7-, e:. `,35.;ts: Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 346 iffvel:Tirnefqi fLt:117i172-7:::::+112.6c. „tc: .1 .9,Mt ;-:::':_:jilEt 9 5 '-4: 4 -5 '71_,ACHli„,:: Volume Xyph) 0 1 738 414 2183 0 0 0 0 388 0 406 re Factor ,;:z r::::.0:95:1.95: 0:954 0.95: 095 095 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1748 777 436 2298 0 0 0 0 408 0 427 LaTeTGrdupFloW (c i Of: '.:y :.-.5C7408::: Turn Type Free pm+pt Prot Perm Protectediphasev J if ;174; 7:41 f.7 1 yi2 f..3 5 1..._ c0... Permitted Phases Free 8 6 Detettdr_Phas 77 .c 3P: c 4, '1' C 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minirrium:Split(s), .i 1Orr- 0.r 10-.01 t:t:::-fl 4, ...47., 10.0it_10 Total Split (s) 0.0 44.0 0.0 21.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 rotal_Split=(%)n ;L=;....:,,,0 0:0% 23 3% 722%7 670%07- 0.0°/0127.8% ,27.8%':278li Maximum Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 YeikiW,Ta 7-7:" "IC, 401 4'.0 :::a: 7777 --7 2 -7: 4.0 4.0'r c -2 470 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag7 .21J- ttLag,:_:2 Leath- 41- f i? Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension,(s) -7' 30 307: 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Min Min min ActiEftct Greem(s)::::: 40:.0,' 90.0' 61.0 61.0:- t 21. it'. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.13 c/o Watio 1 -2- .14;_ 051. 1.08- 7 099 1 1.16 .n nnn Control Delay 99.0 1.2 79.2 23.7 8. 5.7 132.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0:0' 0.0 2311 0.0 59.7 Total Delay 99.0 1.2 79.2 46.9 85.7 192.0 F F Loa>, cr Approach Delay 68.9 52.0 140.1 APProaehlOS. E D F 90th %Ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 900 Term Code COold Max Coord HoIQ Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 8 01 t 03 04 25 '_..A -F':. I 21as., sI 44 s _e' a k -'?n b:g .s ,_...-_-.4_ 06 6 08 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 Lane Group, 70th %ile Term Code 50th %Ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term. Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %Ile Term C odeff 10th %ile Green (s) 1 Oth' %vile Term God& Queue Length 50th (ft) Queu&Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) T urn Bay Length_ Base Capacity (vph) 1528 1538 Starvation CapReductn 0 Spillback Cap Reducin eductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio w‘ Other Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ram PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 1 4 C 4 4 t EBEBT,;• ,EBR'WBL Coord 38.0 Coord 38.0 Coord? 38.0 Coord —618 753 1.14 0.51 1.08 1.06 y Scenario A 9/6/2006 WBT WBR NBNBTk,NBR SBL£SBT'SBR Max Coord 15.0 59.0 Max Coord• 15.0 59.0 Max. Coord: 15.0 59.0 Max Coord 0 -227 420 0m #299 m#845` 540 Hold Max: Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold.. Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold' Max ;'r Max -240 -288 #425 1#473 266 1.02 1.30 Intersection Summa Area Type: cycle L the 90: Actuated Cycle Length: 90 _Offset -36 (40 (2); :Referenced tophase 4:EBT and 8 W BTL =Start of Green i Natural Cycle: 110 Co_n_tr_ol Type Actuated Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.16�� Intersechon•SignahDelay `7,1 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ArialysisPeriod°(min):15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. W S.�,v- Queue shown is maximum after•'twp cycles., 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. r a Queue showoffs mapmum'aftertwo cycl m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Lanroup,, Lane Configurations Meal Floyi.(vO`pl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detecfer (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor 4 1,Efirrai1t,\A1131-414/vaTiPENBL4MI3R tt tt 1900 .-1900 1900 _1900 1900 1900' 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50'; 50' 0 0 0 0 15 15 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd:FlOW(PriPt) .3335 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95D Sard.:FloW',(p 3438 01- ;KO' 3438 3335 t1538' -r.:'f 7 .c., 7- tr t.7 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes S atcl'iFloV(RTOR) .:7,7 ..7„ ,<7;;;;* '.1. i-lar-r, Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 s uiikil§P.siirLiRhp2.;_,.. a ,Trati,l)%tcalt 35 ;r:`','' "'C' f =d 'C'' Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 TriCrel.Tim ;77. 9,4,A''.. - 7.;;,,..?.. f ir ,,a,7737gc .-.2.-Licr ..t. ,:i Volume (vph) 2649 0 0 1789 808 429 PgakiLf6OPRI6F It 0 95 o gt7 Adj. Flow (vph) 2157 0 0 1883 851 452 LaneyGroup Flo* (vPh) -2157. ,:i..'-(1°,-if: ",:..0S-11883- 4„:851;:_ti 4522' 3-L. :iit --1±4;' .Y4 t..,-.,- `:4;r,L Turn Type Perm Prote '.ri 8--.'17772.t". ?Pt. t....-7, :-.7 '5,--: 7 2. 1 Permitted Phases 2 DelecteLphases; ;4772. •87:7 Minimum Initial(;) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s)* i0Th71 Cv!,4 IQtCJO 0 o o2 Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 fr6faispif Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 ye IOW:7 rhi 741772 -F Time (s) 10 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.28 0.28 V Ratio 7 1 '0".99''';;; -0186 0:92:- 1.04'' Control Delay 15.4 3.6 48.0 87.7 Queue 15.0 26.:" 0.0 15.1 Total Delay 30.4 6.1 48.0 102.8 Los c At- D F Approach Delay 30.4 6.1 67.0 APproacli LOS C A E 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 90th %He Term Code Coord Coord Max MaX 70th %Ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 r. :Tr Tt 7 21 7 'Ty Scenario A 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 10 4 V 02 II" o4 297072taTC.:717: t tit ill MirELtrrt.g.: 4— o8 61 rtiVr=1.7.5 ,tiZirga.TVAT....tth7;;;LI:ZI.f.1„7„;:cr fi,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 t .,„,_E[3 BT.% 70th .%ile Term Code Cocird'r'l_ e 'Cobrd' 50th %Ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 50th Toile Term Code Cood Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 30th %Ile Terni-code', -Coord- Coord 10th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 10th %ile Terrn.Code' Coord Coord Queue Length 50th (ft) 186 20 Queue Length-95thj(ft)...m120; t„ m6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 Turn Bay Length (ft B ase Capacity (vph) 2177 2177 StaponCaf&jcth 64 188 Spillback Cap Reductn 105 37 StoTageCaplRelductrIk 4,?a, Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.95 Intersebtion:Summa Area Type: Other C -f1 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset-00;(33°4); RefirentedtleThese'. Green L •4::„1 Natural Cycle: 90 ControljType:.Attiated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Irillersection",Signal Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% I ETLevel of Service G Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. MOlieueihbv■thfie7MixiThiirri after ICA676761ei777:77;a 4 71 2 a. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. r:TQueueshoWiiisirniiimafter twci cyclee 47 77. 7.r77.7.7. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4 I NBLNi Mex- -Max 23.0 23.0 Max: -Max' 23.0 23.0 Max Max.' 23.0 23.0 =Mai Max 241 -277 L#355i. 592 926 434 0 17 ;PAH ITT 0.92 1.08 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions P1 Total Split (s) 19.0 53.0 37.0 37.0 34.0 34.0 Maximum Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 4.02 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag 7•;7:• Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes ehicIe Eiiten166 30 Recall Mode None None C-Max Aet EffC197eh (S).7•17 490„, 733.07 Queue Delay Total Delay LOS r Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th Term Code' 70th %ire Green (s) 31.0 28.0 28.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lij Lay 74. Yes Yes 7 :13.0 C-Min None None Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.54 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.33 v&Ratib 0.79%7653 -0.69. 079E1: Control Delay 47.8 2.9 26.8 35.9 44.8 5.2 0:0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 2.9 26.8 35.9 44.8 5.2 A C D A 22.1 32.0 41.9 C C D 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Max Hold Cookl• Coord Max Max 13.0 47.6 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneGroup 70th %ile Term Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term•CodeW 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ileTerm Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th' %iie Term'Code; Queue Length 501h (ft) Queue' Length;951h (ftPi#_ Internal Link Dist (ft) 1367 Turn Bay }Length (ft)' Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Capi,Reductn w Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductnm Reduced v/c Ratio Inter Other Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 EBL EBR NELNEtSWxT SWRh ;Max Hold`- Coord,' Cdord 'r- Max Max' 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 x Hold!'Coord?- Coora Max Max 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 "Max` Hold Coord Coord Max Max 12.8 47.0 31. 28.2 28.2 r- Coord' Coord Max Max 125 0 189 337 319 0 0.79 0.53 0.69 0.90 0.96 0.20 Area Type: Cycle Length 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%) Referenced to$hase2'i Natural Cycle: 80 ControFType Actuated Codrdinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 IntersectionSignal Delay 33:4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% /analysis Penod'(min) 15 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. ueue shown<is max after two Ey cles S.y 02 o5 I eg:x: 19 3Ts 7 04 53 I o 07 r 08 Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 0 Lane&Group EBLEBRI rN Area Type *t Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection CapacitY7Utihzation 68:0% Analysis Period (min) 15 E! tt tnis w!. Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1960, .1900 r 1900 1900 1900:r1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane, Util °Factor 1'.00 1 OO :E' 1 00?= 0.95 0.91_ 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.987 Fit Protectedr- Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 Fit 'Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) a Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Lmk Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volumew(vph) Peak Hour Factor Add "Flow (vph) y Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign Contro IntersectiomSuummary 0 3438 4876 U CeVel0f Service Scenario A 9/6/2006 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PM 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) T0rning'SPeed (Mph) Lane Util. Factor -71 4- t Lane Grounti‘s t''..-ctszcriZEBti. t tr r .1900 ;1960 1900 -::1900;,;(1960;±=1900-,;" 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 c); 5OET 5050t 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9;_tpie.: 15 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.66 Lod ,frvg:74:±7a Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Sald:FlOW(PrOt) aci; 1719h11 7 TA,,,;;;,,. Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd Flowi(perm)c, 1 810 c_1810ift,1810 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd:FlOWART01107: 199 -2; -166. Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Distance (ft) 1174 1862 1638 TrayelTirne(s)37 2 :To z.,17-:82 Volume (vph) 465 222 605 189 65 699 Peak Hot:ni:Factoc T .H0195 0.957470.95:1:-, Adj. Flow (vph) 489 234 637 199 68 736 Fliikt■ijili) Turn Type Perm Perm Perm PrcitecteePhases;47 41 W Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 Detector Phases %4 z• 4 L' z Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimurri: )71 j l TOTh T-70'.rd,T;riOlb Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 tIOTalS3lit7(%)71:7,','75171 oic"76 oke4 0/074 w, 51:1%;„.51:1 °A;77:7 Maximum Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 «eilow Tlrne(s) 4Ot 40 40 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ld/Lagr 1; -.177-7,771J:77- Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.044 -3.0 -3.0 3.0 3.(3 30 Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act.EffErGreenji)2- 47 1 .0f Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 .0.9a Control Delay 8.0 3.4 28.8 3.1 13:0 34.8 queue Delay (lit 00 1070;010 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.0 3.4 28.8 3.1 13.6 34.8 Approach Delay 6.5 22.7 33.0 Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 90th %ile Term Code Hold Hold -Copid Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38. 40.0 40.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 "7-34272 AM 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 bane,,,Group;,;i&jf.:47.iiZZAEBL 70th.%ile Terrn Code 50th %ile Green (s) 500.5ile TerrICOde 30th %ile Green (s) 30thyRile.Terin Code 10th %ile Green (s) Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Di.E. Base Capacity (vph) Stary:etiori:LetReductni Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Reduced v/c Ratio InterSeCtIONSUMnia A ze4T 15atwittatt, Area Type: Other Cycle Length:-.90SE y Actuated Cycle Length: 90 ,Off (89°/0)Refereneed Greens. ir Natural Cycle: 70 :=1.7y; Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay ,Interspetion.LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D 'Analysi& Period (Min) 15;;' 217 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer ile shown is rRaxii m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. lc/ :Phase conflict between:lane•grouPs7r; Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates c 4/ Hold Hold. Coord. Coo MaK Mak n 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 41.2 41.2 Hold Hold Ceord COord Max Max 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 40.4 40.4 coore!;- Gap Gap 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 33.3 33.3 Gap GaiCcibrd C6 H.9101:- 207 33 309 0 20 296 fil #5611; :<7 1094 1782 1558 'TA:tty 851 851 831 814 808 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lv; 0.57 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.08 0.91 Scenario B 9/6/2006 1 Page 2 06 I' 04 46 ir2.- 2. ,isel 17 Irj 44 r.3.. ir 3 ::-.5:r!":„7-:tt,:si I 4. kasic 0 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 bane,,,Group;,;i&jf.:47.iiZZAEBL 70th.%ile Terrn Code 50th %ile Green (s) 500.5ile TerrICOde 30th %ile Green (s) 30thyRile.Terin Code 10th %ile Green (s) Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Di.E. Base Capacity (vph) Stary:etiori:LetReductni Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Reduced v/c Ratio InterSeCtIONSUMnia A ze4T 15atwittatt, Area Type: Other Cycle Length:-.90SE y Actuated Cycle Length: 90 ,Off (89°/0)Refereneed Greens. ir Natural Cycle: 70 :=1.7y; Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay ,Interspetion.LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D 'Analysi& Period (Min) 15;;' 217 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer ile shown is rRaxii m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. lc/ :Phase conflict between:lane•grouPs7r; Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates c 4/ Hold Hold. Coord. Coo MaK Mak n 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 41.2 41.2 Hold Hold Ceord COord Max Max 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 40.4 40.4 coore!;- Gap Gap 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 33.3 33.3 Gap GaiCcibrd C6 H.9101:- 207 33 309 0 20 296 fil #5611; :<7 1094 1782 1558 'TA:tty 851 851 831 814 808 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lv; 0.57 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.08 0.91 Scenario B 9/6/2006 1 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions IlanekGrouparSerfraEBLE Lane Configurations VI Flovi(CPhP1);'.-. 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading;DeteCtOr (ft)- 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turning` Speed (Mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 Flt Protected 0.950 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4*EBTalEB .RittaYSLAVV,13,TaWBFMNBLI2ONSLonNBR3ASELiLISERIJSER2 ft r tt r r r r 1900, 1900 1900, .1900 1900 -1900 1 900 1900. 1900 1900,,,c,,10 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 501• 50 50 ;.,50 50 50-.. 50,:„ 50 50 50:7 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 15 9 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.66 1.06 0850 0.850 ro 0.850 6850 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sild. (Plot)..,:::14:,:.". 3335 :4307 ::15387.?:171 1538, 3335: ''4538 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said: Ficiw.(0 )7:z:2' 3335‘'.434381 538 1719::::,34,38:1.. 4538 .),-17191719 1 "ti 17191538 538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes 5,1A96-:: 3 1z:;±27i ;E7 1,43 Tj i.: Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.6 6 s T. n 1.00 1.66 1.00 1.66 1.00 "1.00 _44, LinivsFee r: 4,---i- T 72 •ric-30'1,H1. 7: ;;:30 I .i Link Distance (ft) 84 iir 882 16 68 fEravelTime,(s), FT,: -7.74.12.8 'o -"2 1.i. 126. .:_fat_ 20.0[,-..,,. 3f9Th:P Volume (vph) 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 57 20 25 '282 21 291 Peak Hour FackPro2. 095 ,i-0:95.4, 095 0.95- 0:95.,;0.957 95 0.95E- 0 095 ,r• .0795 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 60 21 26 297 22 306 La1S e7drOirpi:Fl6WL:CiPtii'208`-f. 9_6A- 129 2415.77,2017514.6 21 1306 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over Proteated Phasei r: 3 7- T;i 7 2:tr,-- 2.573 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 tiltector,PISel:'-. :,T'=,`.7 s. ,4241 ±2 .1 IT 13: 'fi.:2 8). 7 i 0:;‘;;17.67:71.71:2,1" 4 2!:<: Minimum Initialis; 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4:r 41 4:6 4.0 4.0 410 4.0 MinirnitaSplit-(p)17,..,....;-.;10:0•:;......1 a 024- .10;073 00 (lir t ;lg.:0 2J0.o 4. o.o. s ae.cr ,,'2.1LIpiL i (s) 13.0 57.0 11.0 10.0 54.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 tTotal •:7:-1".147.4% 633%::.,1 2.2%11.1% 313W 12.2%:.12.2W41.1%0T133.%'133°/ov.1,4'.45 Maximum 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 melloWlimei 1. 4 4T 0-....-;40_ Alaied Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 270 1.6" fa' 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/g. 3-. C-:- Lead -fir' Lead' Lag 4 .=1,7 Lead -r- t 7 LreaEl Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yehicle'Exterficir(s)`. 3.0. r./ 305 o 3:0oii. 3,0 3-.0- !3.0 .4 -30 o. 3.0:: -AO, 3:0 i'o 3.0 R e cai i Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min 6-Min None Min Min None Act EffCt,Green (s):y, o 9.0 53.0 601' 500 8O 7.0 'o 13.0178.0 Actuated g/C 0.10 0.59 0.71 0.07 0.55 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 6:69 b:i 0 v/c Ratio o oo:,'' 0.62 0.96 .,,0.09 112 1 0.19 :0.45 0.16 coo 0.11:o 100 0167 107 Control Delay 47.7 30.6 1.1 109.3 137.9 0.2 50.8 41.7 16.6 96.2 41.6 95.6 queue Delay 0.0 0.0, 0.0 00 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 00 00 0.0 Total Delay 47.7 30.6 1.1 109.3 137.9 0.2 50.8 41.7 16.6 96.2 41.0 95.6 LOS 7 ii D Approach Delay 30.9 126.5 40.7 94.0 Approach LOS C F D F 90th %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 90th %ile Term Code Max Max' Coord Max Max 7 Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 70th %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 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 3 0 2 l le 03 o4 lil.t4M .1. c;1':- Of 1 2 te 'Led !Ilk lk I I ocel;., EV 5 571ettiall.§Y2H--.TAL. Z iiI.M z .....',...-'str .54.t .,..fr Z Z. 7y.7.;,;:tir 4 4c--- 1 3 VIT. :ill a- M 5 a rs igk "ser "Pra; 4a.rFir atit I :5 7 ZI`T; Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions Splits and Phases: AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane Configurations IdeafFlow (3plpl): Turning Speed (mph) Lane UtiI. Factor Frt Flt'Protected' Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Fa ctor;, Link Speed (mph) Link<Distance (ft)` Travel Time (s) Volume'(vph) Peak Hour Factor L∎0 Flow (vph) 7 Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign7Control S Intersection'Summary, Area Tpe Other 1x Control Type: Unsignalized 3T Intersection Capacity Utilization_62 6 Analysis Period (min) 15 F I R- EEO' WBT iWBR 1 SEL' SE t tt r 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 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 0 1810 3438 1538 _1174 2.5 17.8 0 1076tz. 1903; 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 1133'; 2003 x;'3`471+, 0 1133 2003 71 7 F,Fir Free 0 0 1565 1.00 39 u Level'of SerRice B Scenario B 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Lane:GroupiNaattflOEICIF411EBTatEB_ROW.BaleriZW.BIRCINBE-2faNB2 Lane Configurations 5 ft+ 'i tt r W IdealFloW (vphp1).:. 1900 1906 1900 =1900: 1900::!:::1900 1900 1900 ,1900:,--: 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) j 50 '56 -5' 50 50 50 -50 t 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuthing (mph) .152::"..: .:j- -9;2-, ..,:15i.` i 1 u9'-'-.-= 15* 3 1 5 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Vehicle EZtension(s) 3.0- Recail Mode None C-Max Act Effct Green (s): 726772.5T Actuated g/C Ratio (5.61 6.61 ■dcRatiOTE4 1.10 0:71 Control Delay 97.5 2.0 Queue 6.5 0:9; Total Delay 104.0 2.9 Approach Delay 19.0 Approach LO 90th %iie Green (s) 11.0 70.0 90th %IleTeri Code Max COord: 70th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 >ir 1 4- 4 t• Scenario B 9/6/2006 Yes Yes 30rTh0 Tho 30 1 C-Max C-Max Min 55.0 55.01. 90.6' .7: 9.57 0.61 6.11 7 028 031 2.2 9.5 0.3 34.7 0.1 o.d o.o 2:2' 9.6 0.3 34.7 A A A c 7.8 34.7 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 Coord Coord Hold Max 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 6 1 m2 It i4& „...4.1 76:4`="Cc.4-.2.7. f 1*,-- :77 1 rt- ;ZS ...1W Or. 21 4 1 05 3 o7 A 714riagi.:V. Ft Wrollot,.°c'e4rfoo 59 r iF..4 4 !.`4,afgrat_&°..flleSeelgArfan"SZP.Zflintirffaiii r.' 14 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions LaneiGroup,ak:1,..&aept?EBUt#EBTLINEBRkAINBLibABTAWBR;,,NB112i0,1\IBL,.._ NE3t:SELttg„SERate 70th;%ile.Terin Code ."1\lax:CObrd:: Co'&41 Hold Max 1 I c. 50th Toile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 50th %ile ;Teti Cade,.. Max: Coord Codrd Cboitl -,17,' 7::moia Max t. 30th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 t 30tfit%ilaTermode: ,Max- Cbord-. Coord Coord.. n ii'' Hold Max- 10th %ile Green (s) 13.5 72.5 53.0 53.0 5:5 5.5 fOth.yOileterfn Code. ,I tVlaX' COad:?..:Y!: Codniv Cobrd::".. ;Oaf:;:. Geld Queue Length 50th (ft) -210 69 0 498 OugUe'llifength: 95th01) iii50,.= Internaitink Dist (ft) 179 Turrtpaylerigth (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 339 Starvation.Cap;Redrictiltr, t. d5h;,..47 Spillbacir Cap Reductn 0 0 8 tbride" .CaTi ae 5 01:1;ic.:T0:::: Reduced v/c Ratio 1.12 0.86 Intersectiont,Surnrharywn:,%•cra -4 Area Type: Other Cycle::Lerigthi::90 t ;577 c-r; 4 4 2: c 7,77, Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset .31 (34%), Refeferr t ied:tdphase:4:EBTL:andi3:VOTLIStart of-9reen-t i csk:'. ,,I,‘:ry, it I Natural Cycle: 80 ContrOl Type rt. 2, q Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10 Inteesection Signal:Delay13.91c: .4,4" zek.F Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 .T__- r. -:77.2;f4:ZT,11.,277:11:a Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. 1,;,-i,CtieFO is maxim urn atter 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue 'shown r is maximum after.tVvo"Cycles:/ 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 C 4- k- 4 VI p emt 0 24 ml 22 •.,i1/.-% 1539 915 337 111 2101 1538 191 0 25 0 0 oro 0.05 0.83 0.28 0.31 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle:Extension (s)- -3.o:y,,' ?,7r3 -7 -_,..0 -7.;-:-7 Ji T': J.: 7773.0': 30 .1, 3.Q Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min A ,:'7 90.07 54.01 7p I- i T 2 80 280 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.31 0.31 v/c Ratio 7:717 M c" 1.08 :7e046 1 7 4- 680 7.1 Control Delay 66.9 03 108.6 29.9 41.6 244.4 Queue Delay 00 0.0' 00 6.8 J 0 6.0 Total Delay 66.9 0.3 108.6 36.7 41.6 244.4 Approach Delay 46.5 47.1 Apfiroach LOS: D D 90th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 90th %He TerM Code COore Max Coord 70th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 167.9 26.0 26.0 26.0 Hold: Max MaX 26.0 26.0 26.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 8 \I. 01 do3 lib o4 32s„-. Ii 1 o6 V 08 32 sa 7?.2 -1 55871 i?s..' C„I.alireza!9"-*" r-.. Tell *i+u Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane_Group, JC. 70th. %ile Term Code': 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %oile Term Coda': 30th %ile Green (s) 30th. %ile Term Code` 10th %ile Green (s) o 10th %ile Term Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue, L ength_95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap,Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Stor'age'Cap Reductri Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection, Summa Area Type: Other EB T_� ,EBR� Coord Max' 36.0 10.0 Coord Max 36.0 10.0 Coord Max 36.0 10.0 52.0 C oord M a x Co HoId -.Max Max 523 0 188 350 222 557 m #566 m m #307 #764 #372- #776 753 540 407 266 1452 1538 0'.:. 0 1.08 0.45 1.12 1.02 eyble Length; =9,0; Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 36 (40%) ;?Refe'rericedao phase:4:EBTrand B. WBTL`;. of_GTeenr Natural Cycle: 90 ControlyType: Actuated Coordinated` Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.46 9 Y Intersection_Si rial Dela 70 6 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8 %u AnalysisPeriod ,(min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown' is.maxiinum'aftertwo;cycles y 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. t ,Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m. 3 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 WBL ;WBT WBR NBL• NBTrtpNBR SBL- IVHSBT:+ -aSBR Coord Hold' Max' Max 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Coord t Hold Max Max 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Coord f Hold.: Max' Max 26.0 26.0 26.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 535 485 0.80 1.46 Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions P lianelGroup,t-S,..at.:A „.J Scenario B 9/6/2006 =•....1- St` Lane Configurations +1' tt ti r Ideal Flew, (vphpr I lf, 1900 71900:,", 1900, 1900 1900 -1990 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50, 50 50, 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 TurpirigSpleed(Mph) s- '--,.-9'..- 15 15:, 9,,;t: Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt:. r 0850 Fit Protected 0.950 Satd:.-Flo■n(prot):±...1 3438 I 0' 3438; 3335 '1538::_: =1:::: Flt Permitted 0.950 Sitd7FloTy 'f..02.‘' 0.1' 3438: Q335 1538j T" Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said. Flew (RIOR) fa 7. f; :1... i J.Th., ZS' 'fle.:. ...t._t..1071. Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 pink Srieech(rTiph)75-. i „:j- 451;t_. 7 .1777 Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 iTraVelTirT 7 .'C: r 4 F 4 4 -;7 1 7- 19 t1: 3 1 k7= r 1: I Volume (vph) 1901 0 0 1670 596 326 Pea`k Hour Factor7r0:95: ;0.95::: 0.95. .:.095 Adj. Flow (vph) 2001 0 0 1758 627 343 Lana Group,Flow i 6277.1.',34.3 .2", ''.f;- 'f 11 Turn Type Perm Protected,Phasesi:- 4,-= L 1-4- '1, '8,-c,.,Y,5,-±,2.I.,,,_:„Fi0,,,,,:41 „„..,,i,. f± •Li Permitted Phases 2 Dereaor.F. .C l.=7 'J 7 78 7-;E:;/2"7:7 '4 7. Minimum Initial (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 N4iniF6aITSpliftgF -F ,,10.0 17F 'Ir, 4:1 0.0; ',.1-1::".,1 ::77 11:5:;....1.1:L Total Split (s) 57.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 33.0 33.0 iTalal 63 36:7% ''-'..'':;177 Maximum Green (s) 51.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 allow-Time (s) 4.0777:: .1, s'.. 4.0 470 '.7 r );T::'.:- All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lagl c:-. --7, f:a: t. 7:!: .7 7:::: t \c :f....: ...c.....y.f.; :12 i 1' i .1 5117 j Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle (s) i 3.0: 7T :370 :307 30 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Green (s);" 7 566F 56 .-lf- 25.4 254 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.28 0.28 q/E Rill6 [':10 .93 2r-, i'c'''Tt 1 01 ;10767 018's '7 Control Delay 11.6 4.3 30.4 35. Quebe-Delay 1.1 0'.0 0.6 0.0 Total Delay 12.7 4.3 30.4 35.9 LOS B K-- Ce D Approach Delay 12.7 4.3 32.4 Approach LOS B A C 90th Toile Green (s) 51.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 70th %Ile Green (s) 51.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 10 o2 o4 33 l IS 57is r .z.Na l 08 57s ?.a-- =,=cr sr a:....., m, Sttlzsf,rt „pi. 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 Lane,Group-_ 70th %ile Term Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term Code 30th %He Green (s) 30th %ile Term Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %oile Term Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 951h (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2163 Stervation_Cep Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn 50 StoragelCap Reducfi F 'Reduced C/o Ratio 0.95 Inters- ectiornSpmmary Z :r Area Type: Other Cycle §Length :90 ,R r Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset,30 33%) ;-Referencedto.phase_4;EBT:and 8:WBT',Start`of�Green Natural Cycle: 65 C, ont ol,TypeiActuated- Coordinated'= Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal,DDelay: 6 Intersection;LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis;Period 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 7 f i-- 4\ tEBT:; :EBR, ¢WBL'-4,1WBTi i iiNBL 4 ,„SNBRk Coord Coord Max Max 52.3 52.3 25.7 25.7 Coord Coord 56.7 56.7 Coord Coord 62.1 62.1 Coord Coord 185 17 m161 80 540 179 0.82 0.58 0.68 Gap Gap?. 21.3 21.3 Gap Gaps. 15.9 15.9 Gap 155 167 206 262 592 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions a 1 LanekGroupk-."; I ilraEBIN„ EBR T. ..svvirt„s 4, it SIM Lane Configurations r ti tt ttt r Ideal (ypriP1),.' 1900 t1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ii Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 7 50;-•:: 50 50- 50 50: 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tulninds?aecc(ipti)-2 15 5. :9k-- "c. 15 1 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Frt 7 7 -;:.07850 7 J.T. ,-;:i• 0r.850 Q 1 L Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 SitY,Fl6vi(pi T- .c.z Tr 53873335 3438:- "4940t L1538:LF,- '''z-• ',:-.1 e- j '..:7 r- t -1 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 SatdFloVi.(Perm)- 't Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd..Flow '77,777 7 17 7 4 "--..;4: 1 :11'7;i;F*: 1 4 1 OriV- 7:1 7.1.7;,1:j Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Iii :•7=:45;:::1`,--:Yrjr; Link Distance (ft) 1446 1679 827 Tri (s):_tifc_:::>32 •r-:;•;:_25.4 J12. ..r-L. 7- Volume (vph) 227 302 1030 849 1793 147 P'elk -.4, ..17 /:.:717_ -77--- h...2.4...•ral Adj. Flow (vph) 239 318 1084 894 1887 155 LaneGhoup"FloW(7ph)723 :318' ..=-;1084 ":7; 894' 18874 55,.1A a.,.y t, r Turn Type custom Prot pm+ov PrOtebtecfPhases 4 ;75 1 V-.: 5 7 2 r.4.;" 8 tk.1.:e 7. 5* :tfc.:,,,,: Permitted Phases 4 8 detector'Oiase L C NV4 7,.. 5" --L.: 5` .J.B.:. t C.:::...: 77,..r 11L „1 S':;_ 7 j Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Miriih i 0 A._ 410.017,A 100i 510.0 ;100 Y. ::1 44..s...;7... 4 n Total Split (s) 13.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 45.0 13.6 58.0 ITotahST5lit%)7Tc-r. 14 35.6°/th- 35.6%459.0 Maximum Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Ye'llOTITim76 z o ••ff,t0 r. :774. pik 77 7-1 r. ...,:s 7 4 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag_ Lead =Lpg70-ead,,,E .7..;::::::._;,:„ r.7,- Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle'Extehs167 '-i.' -370 7, 30 30: ..73.02j. '307 =!3 t,- .t.=?. I, 7 i•-• Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Min None None None ActEffct Gfeerr( 90 90.0 28.22,-28.2:: 408 53.8, 7„,: ,I, .„7,,,,,, Actuated gio R 0.10 1.00 0.31 6.1 0.45 0.60 9.72 021 1.04 0.83 0.84• '7: 0.17- Control Delay 52.4 0.3 65.7 35.6 25.5 7.9 duebe'Delai 00 OTO 0.0- 9.0 0.0T-.. 0.0 Total Del 52.4 0.3 65.7 35.6 25.5 7.9 LOS D 'A ,:B'•,- D C A Approach Delay 52.1 24.2 Approach LOS C p 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 Coo(d Max Max Hold 1 70th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 i 02 a 04 321ea....41:1-atilak 58r&ir-ktitfra*i.avS;:C;--rrL,V±yWW.; 4, *0 -II 07 08 05 32' it tr 'ff PI" 1 aattall PA 45. lai,PitAtfiZ'S.;-r.a.t.:C_T-i:'," j. 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 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Lfreldiruphraiegntu;fE3Ifg4EBRWANELfaNEM.S_WiTEaSWIRZafe41 1/1 i 70th %ile Cod6::`. Max Cdord 50th %Ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 50th %ile Max-.C,Ookl 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 30th.%ile Term Code Coord 10th %He Green (s) 7.0 27.1 10th:?kile Code Max Cool Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #119 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1366 frUrnBayliefigthflt)?,,i Base Capacity (vph) 334 1538 StarvatioriCali- ,R`eductnj;Tiv,On- Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Sto 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.21 S lits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Coord‘ COord--. Mx Max 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 CoOrd; Coord,L Max Max Hold 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.6 Coord Coord Max Max 27.1 27.1 37.9 7.0 50.9 Coord: Cborcti. Max Hold -338 251 354 32 y469 #3201 rri41T 1599 747 J'.• 1b46 1 078 2250 922 0 0 1.04 0.83 0.84 0.17 Iritersection Area Type: Other Cycle Lieribthif =7- 7; 7 4 :T' 3LL Wela 7, 4.4'. 'Wt.; .1.70C Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset.' 80 (89%)",,Referencedito: phese2:NETAnd.5:NE4:Startof„9 Natural Cycle: 75 Controf Actuated-Coordinate& Tr" Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 liffeiTe I Eifrsction LOQD L Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D igThe .;72:7 x-t Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. 77 -7 7.7r --173 2 =-777_72 1 7 M777 7 r• QUItielshown'is;MaXimiim,after go" cyctes:- e r 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer ±,Queue m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions geneiGroilliftTei.EBlitAi_EBR Lane Configurations r tt +tit Ideal Flow (vPhpl) E 1900 1900D,- 1900:2;. 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util.Factoif IMO ;F1:00 -7 '109 0.95= 0.91 0.911 Frt 0.865 0.984 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4861 0 InterseetioniSOmfaary c fl ea j TYP29 7 i 7 C ;':•9ttleC;; 77 =1 c7 r o'i' 712 Control Type: Unsignalized InterectiiiritaicatitVjUtilization 59.6% -',11CU Level ot Service113y Analysis Period (min) 15 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 3438 4861 1-leadWayFaCtock,.,,;7 109;- Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link DistinCe.(fty- Travel Time (s) 31.5 36.5 25.4 Volurife(Vph)77i S. 7, 70,5 .t1901),=.: Peak Hour Factor 0.65 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ACIWFIOTATRIi )72 7 77Orat72 239r .1.--- Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 200 0 1978 2205 0 Sign Contralti:LI: t .s -.5 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 Lead-Lag OPtimize? Velii61e aeea11MOde ACIEffECGrieeB6 )7, Actuated gibRatio y/c Ratio: Contrel Delay QU'etle belay Total Delay LOS: Approach Delay APpi 90th %ile Green (s) 9011) %one Term.Code 70th %Ile Green (s) t C 4/ 3.0 4 3:0:1= 3.0- 3.0 6-Min None None 55.0t,c; 0.30 0:61 6.61 11.4 9.9 '7- 11.2 0.0 11.4 9.9 11.2 B 10.9 B:= 34.1 43.9 43.9 Coord... Max._ Max 28.9 49.1 49.1 oie 550 0.61 0.61 0.30 0.61 r. 39.5 30.1 30.4 070- b.oL 701o, 39.5 30.1 30.4 E5 c7, 35.6 25.8 C 43.9 43.9 34.1 Mthc Max t Cciord 49.1 49.1 28.9 Scenario B 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 1 06 -0 04 .or 41 o8 Ek 46,FITMTI.:4:-1:1Z.::-.1"Str.:5.1, •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 41— t E. TollititsiaerwaSA 70th %ile:Terrn Code:' Max Mai:CObrdCdordt-1: Hole', Hold-. 50th %ile Green (s) 53.5 53.5 24.5 24.6 53.5 53.5 50th %ile Term Cede Max Max COOid7CoOrd. Hold 36th %Ile Green (s) 56.9 56.9 21.1 21.1 56.9 56.9 30th' Toile,Terfa Code` 'Max Max Coord l_Coord, Hold.; Hold_ 10th %ile Green (s) 61.6 61.6 16.4 16.4 61.6 61.6 10th i%ile7ehr Code Mak't-, Max Coorctt1Coerd't:',Holc15 Hold::: Queue Length 50th (ft) 604 46 221 27 51 126 Queue Length 95thl(ft)d#727;2m4541%; L 279,: 341 Inrernal Link Dist (ft) 1114 1782 1558 urn BPVLefigti1(ft r'..; f.; :ZVi Base Capacity &ph) 1106 11u6 804 721 1051 1063 8167 "7 ir -t Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn L 0 24.. Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.21 0.68 .44 Tatie=AArt rOlali ttS,k4Sinotitatl Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LanetGroup, Lane Configurations Ideal`Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leadin ~Detector: (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turn' g Speed(mph Lane Util. Factor Flt Protected Satd w (Prot)',; F Fl oit Permitted Satd:=Flow (perm): Right Turn on Red Satd FIow=(RTO R) Headway Factor L Speed;(mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s). Volume (vph) 271 2073 Peak. Hour Fa ctor,: 0.95 1 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 285 2182 Lane.GroupFlow (vph) Turn Type Prot Protected .PhasesF Permitted Phases Detector Phases:' '.7 4'i 2 3 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Min mu n Splif(s)' X10.0 10.0 10 0: 7 Q Total Split (s) Total:SPlit 7 Maximum Green (s) YellowlTime1(s),- All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? VehicleExtension (s)_ Recall Mode Act Effct Green .(s) Actuated g/C Ratio 'v /c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach,LOS 90th Toile Green (s) 90th Toile Term Code' 70th %ile Green (s) PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates S Scenario B 9/6/2006 EBT? EBR` Wrni_MWBVIVVBRANBL2` NBL Ft SEL 'SER? SER2 "mitt r T v r 1900 1900: 19 1 1900 1900 1900: •1900 .1900' 1 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50, '5072. 50::- 50 50; r. 50 .50. 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 6 0 0• o 0 0 0 9 151':: 9 15..: 15 :.:9 15L 9 9 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0 850 4 0.850- 0850 t= 0.850. 0:850 0.950 0.950 6.950 0.950 0.950 3335 34383` 15381::17.19Z,3438, 1538 ,''`1719 -1 =719 =.1538 3335 :1538 1538 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 3335 3438'T1538' '21719 3438`1538 1,719 1719 1538 3335 '1538 1538 Yes LL Yes Yes Yes 6 152 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30, 5- 0 0 .t;.15 0.97 0.10 0.61 0.73 0:85T:571:047 -0 08 64.4 50.3 1.1 6.07: 0.0 64.4 50.3 1.1 None None C -Min None None 66.0 6.0 50.0 50.1 p 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 Max Maz Coord` Max 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 :30 833 882 7 3 1 m 200 88 67 2370 255 48 29 28 333 30 333 0 95 0 95_c -;0.95 93 71 2495 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 pm +ov Prot pm +ov Split pm +ov Prot Over 0.07 0.56 062 1.31 51.9 156.7 0.0 0 :0 51.9 156.7 D, F 139.3 F 48.0 Max 48.0 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 6 7 6 <7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10 0.1p 0 13.0 57.0 11.0 10.0 54.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 144 63:3 T12 2 11'1 60:0% 133% 12 2 %'.12.2 %11:1 13,3°/0 :-13 3% .14`4 %0 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 :4.0 4.0'4 40 -40 40 40, y. 4, a 40 X4.0 40 k a 40 Co 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead _.La ,ry Lead 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Min C -Min C -Min None Min Min None 58.01:_" ,7.0' 7.0' 8.0 9.0 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 0 25`:0 38 '0.23 0.13 1F.197 0 23, 1:21 0.2 48.1 43.5 20.5 150.3 42.7 143.2 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.2 48.1 43.5 20.5 150.3 42.7 143.2 D D C F D F 39.6 142.2 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Max Coord. .Coord'`' Max -Max 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Max. Max 6.0 7.0 Page 3 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 3 IdaneiGreupe,;$1 70th:,°/OkTerni Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 50th' Code Max MakCdord: Max Maki Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 30th %IleTerM,Code Max,- Max ,ICoord Max i Max 'im• Max, 16th %He Green (s) 7.0 61.0 5.0 0.0 48.0 6.0 10th,%ilel:Terin Code' Max Max' COOrd.' Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 -735 0 42 -967 2 guegeLengfil95th #153, #8737; 12'.;:„.:1 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 Turn !alen f.j:L .?•.:7,1.,,n,.,-,7::,),..V Base Capacity (vph) 3 210 115:3 115 1910 1081 Starvatioci RedUctrir„.,,, 07,„: _:,c)70.'..it t-101fir.i0 07 q 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 STO760 0 7 Reduced vie Ratio 0.85 1.04 0.08 0.62 1.31 0.25 IntersectiomSummants-X‘ Area Type: Other t c Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offs pliase2:NBL1-„StaFtTof Natural Cycle: 120 Centre' Type:Acttiated;Cderdi 4k el Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31 I riteyaection ?clntersectiontroS:kETtt',vC Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. E 11 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. FrOdeue shown le maximurri aftetvito cycles:' tt m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd Scenario B 9/6/2006 .;?,NBIL.44,NBL 2 CoOrd Coord Max Max"'' Max Max Th 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Coord Coord Max :Mak: Max 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 !CoorcP Cdcird Max Max Max Max 5.0 5.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 oord Skip Max r Max Max 28 17 9 -124 17 -162 65'; 45 2823.t.#21,1: 802 1588 134 134 227 296 137 291 0 o o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.23 0.13 1.19 023 1.21 2.:1LCJJ...._„. ..1 Page 4 2 itS je 3 4 11's gliNgiru: Olina fili g o7 08 13i1,4 V 54,salf:Z7S- V.Ltt-Iflt-T! '7:02:teZtaltV101 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 3 IdaneiGreupe,;$1 70th:,°/OkTerni Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 50th' Code Max MakCdord: Max Maki Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 30th %IleTerM,Code Max,- Max ,ICoord Max i Max 'im• Max, 16th %He Green (s) 7.0 61.0 5.0 0.0 48.0 6.0 10th,%ilel:Terin Code' Max Max' COOrd.' Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 -735 0 42 -967 2 guegeLengfil95th #153, #8737; 12'.;:„.:1 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 Turn !alen f.j:L .?•.:7,1.,,n,.,-,7::,),..V Base Capacity (vph) 3 210 115:3 115 1910 1081 Starvatioci RedUctrir„.,,, 07,„: _:,c)70.'..it t-101fir.i0 07 q 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 STO760 0 7 Reduced vie Ratio 0.85 1.04 0.08 0.62 1.31 0.25 IntersectiomSummants-X‘ Area Type: Other t c Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offs pliase2:NBL1-„StaFtTof Natural Cycle: 120 Centre' Type:Acttiated;Cderdi 4k el Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31 I riteyaection ?clntersectiontroS:kETtt',vC Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. E 11 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. FrOdeue shown le maximurri aftetvito cycles:' tt m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd Scenario B 9/6/2006 .;?,NBIL.44,NBL 2 CoOrd Coord Max Max"'' Max Max Th 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Coord Coord Max :Mak: Max 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 !CoorcP Cdcird Max Max Max Max 5.0 5.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 oord Skip Max r Max Max 28 17 9 -124 17 -162 65'; 45 2823.t.#21,1: 802 1588 134 134 227 296 137 291 0 o o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.23 0.13 1.19 023 1.21 2.:1LCJJ...._„. ..1 Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions sc Ltanei,GroupAtaitartiA*EBL- ,),1 i.',SELVLSER' Lane Configurations t +1' r r Ideal Flo* (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900`` 1900'' 1900.: 1900- Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 EaniUtil. Factor 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.0071 f. 00 i3 Frt 0.850 0.865 Satd. Flow (prot) Flt.Permitted: SaidTFlow7perm) Headway;Fg9jor±,: .er Link Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) ypli.Trile76./jihY Peak Hour Factor j: Flow(vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) SiF 6 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 1 00 ..po; apo 1QO 30jJ too? 45 45 35 2.2 18.1 22.1 0 46 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _0675 64 Olt 0 1685 1675 64 0 84 774Fr-r 16 :Stop“ Scenario B 9/6/2006 IntersectionZSummaryak.. a..FT .7.= Control Type: Unsignalized IriferWectiomcgioaditYlUtilizatialT,87.6%7 JA ofiSe &lee E ..rt Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 --D. c 4\ Scenario B 9/6/2006 liane'Proupra .4t-; Lane Configurations 1 ft+ 1 1 tt r W Ideal FloW (vAllOi) 1900 '1900.. 1900 .4900 1900. 1900 1909 ..isoc) 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 pile6for (ft) 50' 50 ':'.'50e 501 e 50:- 50'1 I 50 e Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tikning.SOeec(M3h) ::.15.. .....'1 9 15:. 1(-; 92 9‘1 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 6 1 o2 Icr lost 80:S5 ;te'l :.i. 4a1t- ,15itial.Z. rft,EtWatr,..;Sate;:cS7-77 (-N 4 o5 3 o7 il- 1 m8 tz59:-Fiar ,zii...-=2:- ftitc94.4z.H. -ni-P.:,..a;-cii.-mr,:;:crazriza 14 4. 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 Lane,Groupga? 70th"%ile Code Max';'Ccierd:, Coorck Coord Max -Max r f. i. 50th %He Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 50th%ile•Term-Code Max Cdord?„.. ,Ciiord-• tOold1:-;•• Max Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 306-:%ile -Tern, Code. Max •.„Coord:-Coord? Max Max 10th %Ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 10th %ileTeIrif COde..;,•.,„ MaXi ;:cCoeFel.: 1 Max i Max Queue Length -444 16 11 628 0 33 Qii6ile:Lenbih95th .(tt)A1#41:1•±;:. ml 1 'H m17 fr1#691!.;;! -710 37.-:;:t T #90 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Turn !Y..14ePOth.(!9 _11" 1 .4.3 '''Z' t ;1=3: Base Capacity (vph) 405 2899 103 2101 1538 124 StaivatiFCap ,RedUctri77417.-_- 726 047 i I: :1''.:; i=.:17-7 ;2 :1' 0 C .7; Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storagagap-RedUctn ..=10.., •.,g :-7 ',A :Lr::' 0'4) 4. r-:•. 0;- 0`1. rvi-74 r." 1 1 F 0::'.J:::y Reduced v/c Ratio 1.66 0.97 0.23 0.96 0.37 0.57 Intersection SurnmarYt •.1. %IA:ta Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 90 OffeeL31(3422)FReferencecHo;phasd4:EBILland;8:WBTLfStart ofrGreem:2.- L,6; 1 Natural Cycle: 120 V61161TfieTACtifired:C67irdirialia 7;4 7,77--71:77.77 t Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.50 I ntersedtion I fiterSectiOMLOS:- ft Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% ICU Level of Service F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue:hbwri:is Maximuffi'after 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Q&iirrimihiiJm FTb EIeit7 a 7 72, 7 1";T:c1 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions L.., EE3TftatBs..,ivvBLvyy.Birb,a.vvBF3c.uNBIp.gsmB tt r 'Pi tt 4 r 1900 1900 1900 1906• 7 1900 1900 1906 19003',.1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.o 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 51S 50 ri' f.t 50 ii]...- '41-:-,I:::: 50 50- 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 ._,..15:: 9 i5 9 '.1:„ 15s. 't .9 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 liarie‘Group,, Lane Configurations Ideal Floct(vPhp1) Total Lost Time (s) LeadirigDefebtOr (ft) -{L Trailing Detector (ft) Lane Utii. Factor Flt Protected Setd, Flt Permitted Satd. Flow(perm) Rht Turn on Red Scenario B 9/6/2006 0.950 0.950 0 3438 15381:,'1719r-:_398 5.2::ir!...9,.,62y-;:j 0 Q m 4719` 1538 0.091 0.950 0 3415_3332k/q6 LOiri: ±-1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Headway Factor Link Distance (ft) Volume (vph) Peak Roi...;,Fa Adj. Flow (vph) Lane"GroupPlow(Vph) Turn Type protected Phases Permitted Phases riefea65 52 v Minimum Initial (s) MinimuirirSplit-(s)y Total Split (s) [Total .Split Maximum Green (s) YelloW Timiel(s) All-Red Time (s) Lead/Lag, 5 Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extirsion Recall 7C/TOde Act-Effct'Gree_n_(s)7 Actuated g/C Ratio c/C Fatio 7 77:: Control Delay CaieUe DelaY Total Delay Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %He Green (s) 90th%ile 70th %Ile Green (s) 7Wq Yes Yes 4 r.„ 3 0: r- 3.07.:;:' 310 C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min 40.0 900 61.0 210.; 21.0 0.44 Cob 0.68 0.5 0.51.7 1.21 111 1.17 102.7 0.1 127.9 35.9 0.0% 0.0 0.0 i 20.8,. 102.7 0.1 127.9 56.6 71.7 68.7 E], 15. 38.0 0 59.0 59.0 Coordi Max Coord 38.0 15.0 59.0 112.6 134.8 d. o:o 112.6 134.8 123.5 19.0 19.0 19.0 Max» Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 8 01 1r 03 o4 25s -3 sw.r°,.ty, ny� I 21 szC" ikI ft44Ss. ;....+fit a:,x- .?rnit.ss�a I °1 06 08 25 s'rl s, c a.s. l i 65 s 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 J te k Lane'GroupA EBLg EBT; EBR A /BL;};,WBTS&WBR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord- 50th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 50th %ile Term Code Coorde Max- Coord" 30th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 30th %le Term Code Coord Max Coord 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %oile Terrri Coord Max. Coord Queue Length 50th (ft) -638 0 -294 -775 Queue L ength95th (ft) m #581 mQm #337 m#868.t Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 Tum Bay Length (ft) ,'y_ Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Retluctn Spill back Cap Reductn Storage GapReductn Reduced v/c Ratio IntersectionfSuthh ry Other Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates q 38.0 15.0 59.0 1.17 1.21 1.08 Area Type: Cycle=Length j Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset;: 36 (40 %);`Referenced to;phase'4:EBT`and 8:WBTL; ;Start ofGreen Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type ?Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.21 Intersection Signal Delay: 77 4 '1;� Intersection'LOS "E Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Feriod,(min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. n t _,Queue'shownlis maximum .aftertwo cycles x 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is .maximum cyclee m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario B 9/6/2006 NBR€f SBL' gSBT SBR Hold- Max'• Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max, Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold:` Max. Max -292 -290 #475;• #475 266 401 365 1528 1538 405 2330 1.11 1.17 Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions t 4*-- 4 P Plice roup'ff ,atfitta.f2EBTSQESI3rthiVVStrAVY.BT.eSNBIL NBR -4 ';02 m4 j» tt.r. Lane Configurations ft tt ti 1' IdealFlOWIC/Php1) 1900 1900 1900 1900' 1900 ;1900:T.; Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading cieiectoli (ft) 50: ji, c i 50 -50 -c“. 50:f- Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Tufhing Spaag(rnph)- A 1 92 sy-,115 7 15 :::7::' t 97;? Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Fri: ti- :=::;:::2-1 4; .it 7 1" 04356 Fit Protected 0.950 SatclFlOW a 3438.4. Cli.' 0- 3438 -,7: Flt Permitted Scenario B 9/6/2006 Approach Delay 78.1 Approach LOS i E. 90th Toile Green (s) 54.0 90th Toile TerniCode Coord 70th Toile Green (s) 54.0 Lead-Lag Optimize? VeliibleTExcension (s) 3.07`.., 1 T 3.0 3.0. 73.0 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min ACIEffaci- 7 560!7; 56.0 265:y:ft, 26:0:f -3 t i= t Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0 6:20 0.9 via aatii5 t ;_1105 t 096 0.88 105 Control Delay 34.8 8.4 43.0 89.3 Queue Delay 43.3 0.0 0.0 00 Total Delay 78.1 8.4 43.0 89.3 2 8.4 59.6 A E 54.0 24.0 24.0 COord` Max- Max 54.0 24.0 24.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 10 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 C 1— 4 gane;Grouptaa 70thr%ile Tenn Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th •%ile Terrn Code.. 30th %ile Green (s) 30th "%ile Terri) Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %ile.TerniCode`.., Queue Length 50th (1t) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) TqnTaa Base Capacity(vph) 2139 gaTVatiOri Cap Reductn '25 f. t Spillback Cap Reductn 190 Storage 0 1 c Reduced v/c Ratio 1.15 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Co Coord Max Max t e 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 Coord Coord Max' -Max.'; 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 Coord CoOnt.' Max; Max 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 Coord Coord .-c„Max tt -257 30 237 -294 m1254 m58 #343 540 179 592 2139 963 450 0 0 0.96 0.88 1.05 I n te rsectionLS umma ry15:1- Ja_4`4,It.:6kitt'atif-ISkes*Rfltionaii.Rt att„.1. Area Type: Other Cycle'Lerigth:.90; ;:Th Jmr Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Qffce1730'(33%);;RefeTenEgdWISW4:EBT:andi8:VYBT-,Slart Of Green ;i7. k Natural Cycle: 110 pontroILTYpe: Actuated-coordinated.-*:-<c$- Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection!Sigpal Delay 48 .8 j inteitection D Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G r AnalySis•PeriodAniin)..15.: i ;If "71 2 01",: c 5 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. r7„Queue,shownlis maxim um ts. 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. fl is two cycles.,Etel;:*2:..1p.T m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 11 04 30 C 47;21tSktill17,1 GO rsVraZuna.VilagEVirgjatiffff ZU...' L'en- Zit-2M "-"i. 41 VI, 1— eEt 60 rirT-L;ifj- -ifc....±7 ei'717:1XL.*; igi-1 Pi 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 C 1— 4 gane;Grouptaa 70thr%ile Tenn Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th •%ile Terrn Code.. 30th %ile Green (s) 30th "%ile Terri) Code 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %ile.TerniCode`.., Queue Length 50th (1t) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) TqnTaa Base Capacity(vph) 2139 gaTVatiOri Cap Reductn '25 f. t Spillback Cap Reductn 190 Storage 0 1 c Reduced v/c Ratio 1.15 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Co Coord Max Max t e 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 Coord Coord Max' -Max.'; 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 Coord CoOnt.' Max; Max 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 Coord Coord .-c„Max tt -257 30 237 -294 m1254 m58 #343 540 179 592 2139 963 450 0 0 0.96 0.88 1.05 I n te rsectionLS umma ry15:1- Ja_4`4,It.:6kitt'atif-ISkes*Rfltionaii.Rt att„.1. Area Type: Other Cycle'Lerigth:.90; ;:Th Jmr Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Qffce1730'(33%);;RefeTenEgdWISW4:EBT:andi8:VYBT-,Slart Of Green ;i7. k Natural Cycle: 110 pontroILTYpe: Actuated-coordinated.-*:-<c$- Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection!Sigpal Delay 48 .8 j inteitection D Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G r AnalySis•PeriodAniin)..15.: i ;If "71 2 01",: c 5 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. r7„Queue,shownlis maxim um ts. 4 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. fl is two cycles.,Etel;:*2:..1p.T m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 a 1 4/ Scenario B 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 02 Z o4 37sacr tkr'spip ['mai itx 53"1'42.4:traT4fl tkcikTheir chi; 1 05 -11 a v 08 37 i .5;:k?ti. CEP,r 3 4 ."-Z-4-15;r04-7 r 1 9 'la 7S .T: 34W 2- 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions fit Scenario B 9/6/2006 aflei,EBtitlEBRILANE4ONETtAtSW.ir .SWRISgtalZil-41 tst f SVHISigNSti t 70thAile Term Code Coorcli Ma* Max 50th Toile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 50thi ile Tefrri Max, HOW 'Goof& Coord Max Max 30th Toile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 30th :Toile Term Co ii :.Max- Maxi? 10th Toile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 10th ;Toile Max Coordt Max Max Queue Length 50th(ft) 161 0 209 284 289 2 Quebe Length •95tqfp..,'-: #268at.5074,:,: #441 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1359 1599 747 TOrni.Bay'Length4ft) .7" Base Capacity 556 11 70 1223 1261 1647 603 Starvation Cep Reducfn`q- Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 StoragaiCa'aRedtil:::. 7:'orrtiT4:67-7:74: ofirs;;14,71:: J OT Reduced Nac Ratio 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.90 6.99 0.23 intersdction,Summaryt,',:bt-afWoansik Area Type: Other CS/de sr Sssl s tt s -St s t,st Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 s s se 2 12 Offset: 43 (48%)f ancF5:NEETSca'rebi Natural Cycle: 80 ControF_Type: "r=" I s s- S :kl L r": Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% ICU Level of Service D Arplysisyeriper(m in) 151 4; 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. feTt: shown:isjmaximum alectwei m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LanetGroup& ro }EBL 1 EB13nlEL NET S,WT; SW,R Lane Configurations r ft tttt Ideal Flow (vphpl)' 1900. 1900 r 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Lane Util FaCtOrj 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 Frt 0.865 Fit ProtectedT»., Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permdted< Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factor''', Link Speed (mph) Link=Distance ((ft):- Travel Time (s) Volume; (v'ph) 1 Peak Hour Factor Adt' Flow (yph)$ Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign:Cohtrol. +ice. IntersectiomSummary AreaT.ype ;OtFier'7 Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization;77.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 0 1565 0 1.00 1.00 0.987 1900' 9 0.91 3438 4876 3438 4876 .00f 45 45 4 ,16791k'` 36.5 25.4 0' -1983' 20394 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 4' 2 0 '2087 •2146 207 464 0 2087 2353 rw 0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 .ICU Level.of Service D PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 ll Intersection: E -W: ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Input Name N -S: I -SINE RAMP Count By EP ByI11P Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date 6 /2006 15 Minute Period Begining EB: Left ROUTE 11 Thru Right Total WB: Left ROUTE 11 Thru Right Total NB: Lell 1 -81NB RAMP Thru Right Total SB: Left Thru Right Total N.S, E W 15 Min. Period Begining 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 7:30 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 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 8:45 0 64 0 64 0 83 0 83 120 0 19 139 0 0 0 0 286 8:45 A.M. Total I 0 481 0 481 0 858 0 858 924 0 134 1058 0 0 0 0 1 2397 A.M.'Iotal 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 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 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 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: I -81NB RAMP SB: I 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 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 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 16:30 16:45 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 I I WB: ROUTE 11 NB: I -81NB RAMP 813: I Hour Period N,S. Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left 'Ihru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 0 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 PHF 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 PILE 0.88 PHI' 0.92 PI!F 0.93 PIIF 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 SB RAMP Count By 1JP By 11P Location WINCHESTER.VA Count Date 6/6/2006 1 15 Minute E13: ROUTE 11 W13: ROUTE 11 NB: SB: 1 -81 SB RAMP 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 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 8:15 0 175 129 304 26 270 0 296 0 0 0 0 2 0 116 118 718 8:15 8:30 0 168 114 282 20 190 0 210 0 0 0 0 3 0 86 89 581 8:30 0 154 134 288 40 211 0 251 0 0 0 0 2 0 96 98 637 8 :45 8:45 A.N. Total I 0 1512 1030 2542 225 2164 0 2389 0 0 0 0 22 0 985 1007 5938 A.M. Total 16:00 0 237 160 397 29 326 0 355 0 0 0 0 1 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 0 1805 1238 3043 241 2435 0 2676 0 0 0 0 21 0 631 652 6371 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 N13: SB: 1 -81 SB RAMP 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 0 782 504 1286 119 1139 0 1258 0 0 0 0 II 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 II 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 7:45 800 0 730 526 1256 106 1025 0 1131 0 0 0 0 11 0 447 458 2845 8:00 1 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 16:30 0 988 681 1669 120 1227 0 1347 0 0 0 0 13 0 294 307 3323 16:30 1645 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 SB RAMP 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 0 807 541 1348 115 1298 0 1413 0 0 0 0 13 0 553 566 3327 7:15 AN. Peak PHF 0.88 PHF 0.87 PIIF 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.N. Peak PHF 0.85 PHF 0.90 PIIF PIIF 0.79 0.98 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: CHARLESTOWN PK Weather Dry File Input Name N -S: ROUTE 11 Count By 11P By 11P Location CLEAR BROOK,VA Count Date 611/2006 15 Minute EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 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 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 28 0 48 12 60 2 63 0 65 153 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 38 0 2 40 0 58 11 69 4 69 0 73 182 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 57 0 4 61 0 65 13 78 1 99 0 100 239 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 32 0 1 33 0 60 14 74 1 85 0 86 193 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 27 0 45 15 60 3 70 0 73 160 8:00 8:15 0 0 0 0 34 0 3 37 0 48 15 63 2 63 0 65 165 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 26 0 5 31 0 40 8 48 0 70 0 70 149 8:30 8:45 0 0 0 0 35 0 3 38 0 68 14 82 2 99 0 101 221 8:45 A.M. Total I A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 0 0 31 0 6 37 0 131 29 160 3 62 0 65 262 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 18 0 3 21 0 128 33 161 4 79 0 83 265 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 23 0 5 28 0 104 28 132 3 82 0 85 245 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 24 0 5 29 0 111 44 155 1 69 0 70 254 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 16 0 3 19 0 122 31 153 6 76 0 82 254 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 30 0 4 34 0 115 36 151 4 85 0 89 274 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 22 0 116 19 135 3 55 0 58 215 17:30 17:45 0 0 0 0 21 0 1 22 0 130 26 156 4 64 0 68 246 17:45 P.M. Total U 0 0 0 0 183 0 29 212 0 957 246 1203 28 572 0 600 2015- P. M. Total 1 Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 513: ROUTE 1I 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 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 I 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: W13: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE II SB: ROUTE 11 1 (lour Period N,S. Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Lett 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 PHF 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 PHP I'HF 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 E -W: ROUTE I I Weather Dry File Input Name) N -S: REDBUD Count By 11P By JJ Intersection: P Location WINCHESTER.VA Count Date 6'15/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE I I 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 I 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 i9 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 1 514 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 2 7 4 13 0 0 0 0 152 16:15 1 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 3 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 1 17:15 17:30 133 107 0 0 6 5 139 112 5 5 0 0 12 9 17 14 7 5 5 5 4 3 16 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 139 17:15 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 I Hour EB: ROUTE 11 W13: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD S13: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Hegining Left 'Ihru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 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 11 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 1 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 'lour EB: ROUTE 1 1 WB: ROUTE I I NB: REDBUD SB: 1 Hour Period Begining Left Thru Right Total left Thru Right Total Left 'Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N E W Period Begining 7:00 292 0 6 298 5 0 117 122 21 15 11 47 0 0 0 0 467 7:00 A.M. Peak PHF 0.90 PI IF 0.92 PlIF 0.78 PIIF 0.89 A.M. Pcak 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 Intersection: E -W: ROUTE 11 Weather DRY File Input Name N -S: ROUTE 839 Count By 11P By JJP Location Winchester.VA Count Date 5/11/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SR: ROUTE661 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Fatal Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 1 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 1 7:45 8:00 49 52 243 226 19 20 311 298 29 19 305 299 40 36 374 354 12 14 5 6 6 6 23 26 55 46 6 6 59 55 120 107 828 785 7:45 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 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 15 278 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 1630 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 1 17:15 17:30 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 P.M. Total 1 1 Hour Period ER: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 313: ROUTE661 N,S, 1 Hour Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Lett 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 I I WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 1 Hour 1 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 A.M. Peak PHI 0.95 PHF 0.97 PI IF 0.85 PHF 0.94 0.96 A.M. Peak 16:15 223 1166 72 1461 55 1151 210 1416 48 29 28 105 274 25 274 573 3555 16:15 P.M. Peak PHF 0.94 PHF 0.98 PHF 0.94 PHF 0.94 0.98 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1