Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-06 Traffic Impact Analysis1 1 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing 1 Frederick County, Virginia 1 1 Prepared for: Located in: 1 NV Retail 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22102 1 1 1 Prepared by: 1 1 PH�� l 1 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 PH RA Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 1 Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Lcndsccpe Architects. 1 1 September 7, 2006 1 1 r i L_ 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 turn over restaurant, a 5,000 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant and a 4,100 square foot bank. Scenario B assumes the build -out of the "approved" by -right development to include 325,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 245,842 square feet of office, a 4,500 square foot fast -food restaurant with drive -thru, a 4,800 square foot fast -food restaurant with drive -thru, four (4) 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurants, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 4,100 square foot bank and 4,500 square feet of convenience mart with pumps. Access is to be provided via three (3) site driveways along the west side of Route 11, of which two secondary site- driveways will be right in/out. PHR +A has performed traffic analyses for existing, 2010 background (without development) and 2010 build -out (with development) conditions. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Rutherford Crossing development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the proposed development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford Crossing, Distribution and assignment of Rutherford Crossing generated trips onto the completed road network, Analysis of capacity and level of service with the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS for existing and future conditions. A Tra rc I act Anal sis o the Ruther ord Crossin_ September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 1 r Figure 1 Vicinity Map Rutherford Crossing in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11 /Welltown Road, Route 11/I -81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ I -81 northbound off ramp, Route 11/I -81 northbound on ramp /Redbud Road and Route 11 /Old Charlestown Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 10 Figure 2 shows the ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 3 No Scale 01 01' 0 1 1 E 0 n 807 I 53 (93) oaa AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Average!Daily TtiS -PHR r 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) bpd ter 0 n 3 l Gl Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) O tn Unsignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection C( ie. T -P F 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 7 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Note: Access is to be provided for FEMA and the Lumber Yard via the proposed site driveways serving Rutherford Crossing. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford 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 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 P Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summary A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHIA 1 1 1 No Scale JUL 1'l0 01 04 0' SITE s 18 9(12 6 479 (2ss) old Chades To R AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Ave "rag's DailykT ips Figure 4 P 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 8 Signalized Intersection ck LOS =C(C) e "New Intersection" Signalized S I tersection LOS B(B) New Intersection" Unsignalized Intersection Intersecti Signalized Intersection LOS E(F) 1 ore. E 0 0 ti Unsignalized Intersection Signalized'" "suggested Intersection COS —E InTrre2r's" B a- f L 1 (E) NH NB IRight I NB Left Signalized ntersection LOS =c(c) is SITE "Suggested Improvements" Signalization ck c9 s vet Unsignalized Intersection I (F)e 1i Road Signalized. Intersection LOS C(C) "Suggested Improvements" Signalization NB- 1 Right No Scale :£Signalized lotersection'I LOS B(C): "Suggested Improvements" Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Free -Flow Movement P r Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and LOS A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 9 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 130 Industrial Park 325,000 SF 210 46 256 61 231 292 2,360 710 Office 245,842 SF 339 46 385 60 294 354 2,667 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,800 SF 130 125 255 86 80 166 2,381 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drivc -in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 853 Conven. Mart w \pumps 4,500 SF 103 103 205 136 136 273 3,805 Total Trips 1.255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2.677 28,859 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total AD,I, 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 862 Home Impr, Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 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 11-'I' Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive -in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 Total Trips 725 485 1.210 1.031 1,165 2,197 26.652 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Per Table 2a Total 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Per 'table 2b Total 1.255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Proposed versus "Approved" By -Right -530 -234 -764 -138 -342 -480 -2207 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRIP GENERATION PHR +A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7` Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2a and Table 2b are provided below to summarize the trip generation associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Table 2c shows a comparison of the two (2) scenarios. P Table 2a Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary (Proposed Development) Table 2b Proposed Development: Rutherford 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 -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 TraUic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 11 r Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 12 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Average?Daily T fip s, No Scale 0 O SITE >e. Site F igure 7a Scenario A: Development- Generated Trip Assignment (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number. 14626-1-0 Page 13 No Scale 6 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) �'Average,Da�ly Tips P F igure 7b Scenario B: Development- Generated Trip Assignment (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 14 No Scale L1 y'L1VS9�� D SS I(3R26) vo Ro 9 ^6, 40 60 'tt 1::74-il AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Average?DailyxT'ripT PHR Figure 8a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 15 No Scale 1 :1 0 No 1° 3 �%SP 0 C s of 6 5 (4 2 ryes t own R oad AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) :�'�`Average 1 D`a ly,�T �i ps P Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (By -right Development) A Traffic lmnact Analysis o(the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 16 Signalized Intersection f glC) LOS =C(D) f Intersection" Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection LOS F(F) Signalized, Intel section LOS D(F) tc tc 0 O tn Unsignalized Intersection "Suggested Improvements" EB -3 Left WB- 1 Let.I Right NB I Left Signaiized Intersection l OS D(E) SITE "Suggested Improvements" Signalization f o e I New Intersection Unsignalized Intersection r i No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS C(C) "Suggested Improvements" Signslization N'B I Left NB 1 Right C(D) Signalized Intersection LOS C(D), "Suggested Improvements" Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `■=Denotes Free -Flow Movement P Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Proposed Development) P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 17 t 0 n Signalized Intersection Unsignalized LOS F(F) Intersection cd tFl Signalized "Suggested In 1CINgCtIo11 lmProvements° LOS =EF en -EL e n WB I 1 RigM1t NB l -1 Left eso F �F1 0 ti 1, eta 11 Signalized Intersection vac� LOS =C(D) f Signalized ntersection LOS C(C) New Intersection" Intersection" Unsignalized Intersection SITE Signalized' I ntersection Lips D(E) "Suggested Improvements" Slitnolizatinn S Ri i Unsignalized Intersection O (F)* Y Road Signalized Intersection LOS C(D) Signalized Intersection 'LOS CAD) s "Suggested Improvements" Signalfzalion WB -1 Left NB I Right cc No Scale "Suggested Improvements" Slgnulizati AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Free -Flow Movement 4 -P F igure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 18 No. Intersection Direction Suggested Improvements (Scenarios A B) Levels of Semite Scenario A Scenario B w/o Improvements w/ Improvements w/o Improvements w/ Improvements 1 Route I I /1 -81 SB ramps Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS D(E) LOS F(F) LOS D(E) 2 Route I I/1 -81 NB OfTramp Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LOS C(D) LOS C(D) 3 Route I 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 Northbound Southbound N/A I left tom lane I right mm lane Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(C) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) 5 Route l I /Welltown Road Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 2 left turn lane 1 lets, 1 right tom lane I left am LOS F(P) 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. Table 3 Summary of Suggested Improvements P LOS X(X) LOS ANI(PM) A Traffic impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626 -1 -0 Page 19 HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1-81 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) 490 68 820 923 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, 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 a 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 27.2 9.8 10.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS C A 8 Intersection Delay 14.2 X 0.51 Intersection LOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period 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, 11 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 700 148 1019 865 Lane Group Capacity, c 903 416 2026 2026 v/c Ratio, X 0.78 0.36 0.50 0.43 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.27 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 28.6 25.0 10.2 9.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 4.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 32.9 25.5 10.4 9.8 Lane Group LOS C C 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 1 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Delay 16.8 X 0.59 c 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, A I 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 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 -up Lost Time, li 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 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 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 12.0 12.0 120 120 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 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 11.1 226 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 1050 18.4 123 125 36.5 13.2 Lane Group LOS D C D F B 8 8 D 8 Approach Delay 34 7 41.3 28 7 33.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach LOS I C D C C Intersection Delay I 32.0 X 0.98 I Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 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 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 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 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 17.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 41.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T a25 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 I C C C C Intersection Delay 25.0 X c 0.98 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A I Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 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 Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Existing Condiitons 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 228 0.95 240 1 0 3 R 53 0.95 55 0 0 TR Southbound 4 L 9 0.95 9 5 1 L 5 T 323 0.95 340 1 T 0 6 R 0.95 0 Undivided 0 0 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 Lanes Configuration pproach Movement Lane Configuration (veh /h) C (m) (veh /h) /c 95% queue length Control Delay (s /veh) LOS pproach Delay (s /veh) pproach LOS Eastbound 7 L 0.95 0 0 0 0 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Northbound 1 8 T 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 Southbound 4 L 9 1249 0.01 0.02 7.9 A 9 R 0.95 0 5 0 0 Westbound 7 8 LR 169 449 0.38 1.73 17.8 C Westbound 10 L 153 0.95 161 5 0 0 9 17.8 C 11 T 0.95 0 5 N 1 0 LR 12 R 8 0.95 8 5 0 0 Eastbound 10 11 12 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 452 139 14 312 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 475 146 14 328 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 93 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 97 0 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh /h) 14 114 C (m) (veh /h) 945 320 vlc 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 v/c 0.44 0.01 95% queue length 2.24 0.02 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.1 8.9 LOS B A F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 EastNVest 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 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 474 610 25 19 801 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 498 642 26 20 843 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 21 22 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 22 23 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 498 20 57 C (m) (veh /h) 770 898 0 v/c 0.65 0.02 95% queue length 4.81 0.07 Control Delay (s /veh) 17.8 9.1 LOS C A F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 S8 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 B E F Approach Delay (s /veh) 264.7 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: 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 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 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, 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= 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 0.5 0.3 1.0 1.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 26.3 19.0 21.1 Lane Group LOS C C 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 8 C Intersection Delay 22.1 X 0.67 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 915/2006 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 I Route 11 1 -81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 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, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= 60.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 131 1560 1331 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.74 0.25 0.83 0.71 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 a 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 Version 5.2 0 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCSi-TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst nalyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1464 91 123 2078 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 30 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 a 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 OM 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 B C F B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 91.6 243.5 35.5 100.2 Approach LOS F F D F Intersection Delay 78.7 X 1.35 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A I Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background 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 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 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= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 65.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 1813 93 71 2019 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 270 551 87 203 1866 833 203 1866 833 v/c Ratio, X 1.42 0.44 1.28 1.40 0.97 0.11 0.35 1.08 0.32 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.36 0.22 0.67 0.54 0.54 0.67 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay, d 46.5 29.4 46.5 41.3 26.6 13.4 24.1 27.5 15.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 208.7 0.6 187.5 208.6 14.7 0.1 1.0 46.9 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 255.2 30.0 234.0 249.9 41.3 13.5 25.1 74.4 15.5 Lane Group LOS F C F F D B C E B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 167.3 234.0 67.2 66.2 Approach LOS F F E E Intersection Delay 82.2 X 1.99 Intersection LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1464 91 123 2078 191 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 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 l 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 12.0 12.0 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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= 43 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 52.4 23.5 a 6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.28 0.11 0.44 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.31 0.11 0.43 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.8 0.5 30.2 90.4 1.5 0.1 248.0 1.7 0.0 51.0 43.7 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 54.2 49.5 74.3 145.6 54.4 39.4 300.8 19.1 6.3 103.4 67.2 3.7 Lane Group LOS D D E F D D F B A F E A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 63.9 101.9 50.2 64.0 Approach LOS E F D E Intersection Delay 59,8 X 1.03 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+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 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 To Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru RT 04 Excl. Left Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 44 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 vlc 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. 38.3 443.1 33.8 7.6 51.6 60.5 4.3 Lane Group LOS D D D F E D F C A D E A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 48.4 70.0 85.9 53.8 Approach LOS D E F D Intersection Delay 66.8 X 1.04 Intersection LOS E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 322 150 65 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 338 157 68 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 479 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 504 0 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 68 702 C (m) (veh /h) 1053 496 v/c 0.06 1.42 95% queue length 0.21 33.59 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.7 221.3 LOS A F Approach Delay (s /veh) 221.3 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All 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) (veh /h) 587 69 v/c 0.38 6.26 95% queue length 1.79 48.70 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.9 2485 LOS B F Approach Delay (s /veh) 2485 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 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 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 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, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopp ng, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 54.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 703 339 158 68 473 Lane Group Capacity, c 825 642 1384 284 724 v/c Ratio, X 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 8 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 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopp'ng, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 345 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, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.30 0.33 0.11 0.45 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 5.4 4.6 0.2 41.2 0.4 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.3 27.0 1.5 70.7 15.1 Lane Group LOS C C A E 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 a83 c Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 r 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 /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 576 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 Inc 1.19 0.04 95% queue length 2214 a 14 Control Delay (s /veh) 128.1 12.0 LOS F 8 F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM HCS+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 Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 18 13 355 987 7 6 1321 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 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 a 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 B C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii 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 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 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 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, 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, 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 a2 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 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, Al Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM Approach Delay 35.0 25.8 31.6 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 28.3 X 0.94 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, Al Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherfo d 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 (vehlh) 1118 222 1719 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1176 0 233 1809 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) 93 0 672 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 97 0 707 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (veh /h) 233 97 707 C (m) (veh /h) 573 30 274 /c 0.41 3.23 2.58 95% queue length 1.97 11.53 58.65 Control Delay (s /veh) 15.5 1281 750.1 LOS C F F •pproach Delay (s /veh) 814.2 pproach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of FI rida, 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 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 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (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 olume (veh /h) 130 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 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 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM HCS�TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information MI MIMI MN 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 1 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 11 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 11 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 1 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 M INN MIN =I 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 3.2 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 I El 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 MI Lane Group Capacity, c 535 478 1414 262 1940 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.95 0.83 0.89 0.93 IN e 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 0.2 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, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information IN NM NM EN 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 11 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 11 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 1 1 INN Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp a 2 3.2 a 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 MI III 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 1 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 I 1- a al 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 7.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.9 36.5 31.6 106.7 25.6 Lane Group LOS C D C F C 1 Approach Delay 34.0 31.6 34.9 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 33.6 X 0.85 Intersection LOS C 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 +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 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (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 olume (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. 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s /veh) 16.9 LOS C Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.9 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection 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 Dela Queue Len •th, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 5 C (m) (veh /h) 384 V /c 0.01 95% queue length 0.04 Control Delay (s /veh) 14.5 LOS B Approach Delay (s /veh) 14.5 Approach LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +T Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 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 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 11 15 151 849 1569 22 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 12 16 159 894 1652 23 Lane Group Capacity, c 668 581 371 2297 2738 1265 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 0.03 0.43 0.39 0.60 0.02 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.20 0.38 0.11 0.67 0.56 0.82 Uniform Delay, d 28.9 17.6 37.3 6.8 13.4 1.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.9 17.6 38.1 6.9 13.8 1.4 Lane Group LOS C B D A B 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 Intersection Delay 12.9 X =0.45 Intersection LOS 8 Approach LOS I C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HC$ Version 5.2 8 8 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 68 91 83 1081 1291 12 To Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 16.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 420 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 72 96 87 1138 1359 13 Lane Group Capacity, c 593 718 742 2373 2300 1094 v/c Ratio, X 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.01 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.18 0.47 0.22 0.69 0.47 0.71 Uniform Delay, d 31.1 13.7 28.0 6.5 17.7 3.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 31.2 13.7 28.0 6.7 18.1 3.8 Lane Group LOS C B C A 8 A Approach Delay 21.2 8.2 17.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection Delay 13.8 I X 0.41 I Intersection LOS I B Approach LOS C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved A HCS Version 5.2 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 EastNlest Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1001 1545 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1053 0 0 1626 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0:95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 10 C (m) (veh /h) 315 v/c 0.03 95% queue length 0.10 Control Delay (s /veh) 16.8 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 16.8 Approach LOS C 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing 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) 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 NMI ME 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 Another areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 1 NM 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) 596 247 1610 1564 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 1 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 1 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 i 1 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 1 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 III Il• EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 627 102 1695 1646 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.19 0.90 0.88 III I Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0. 55 0.55 Uniform Delay, d 29.0 25.2 22.4 21.8 MN NM NIII 1111 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 I IMO I•11 IIIN HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour I Route 11 1 -81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 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 1 Start-up Lost Time, 1i 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 I 1 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= 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 IN EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 294 2157 1883 II Lane Group Capacity, c 971 447 2067 2067 v/c Ratio, X 0.88 0.66 1.04 0.91 IN 1 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.29 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 37.1 34.2 22.0 19.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 0.23 0.50 0.43 Incremental Delay, d 9.1 3.5 32.3 6.6 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 46.2 37.7 54.3 26.0 1 Lane Group LOS D D D C 1 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 I Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period 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, Ii 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, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time fo Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 a 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 a 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 8 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 12.0 120 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 a2 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 a 95 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d 423 39.7 225 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 46.7 529 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 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 45.0 X 1.00 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+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 Project 1D Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group i LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 clo Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I Peak Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, h 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 4 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 0 2 C 0 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width L N C J 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 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 0) C 0 N L a. 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 a 10 0.81 1.13 0.22 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0 0) 0 G 0 N 0 To O 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 41.5 29.8 41.5 32.2 16.4 8.5 228 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 C O 03 To 0 Tai 0 1 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 m T a) 4) 0 0 m C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 294.7 30.6 526.1 208.7 20.2 8.6 49.1 86.3 9.3 Lane Group LOS 0 J n 0 0 a) a3 J 1 F C F F C A D F A L 1 Approach Delay 192.7 526.1 38.6 78.7 Approach LOS F F D E Intersection Delay 83.2 X c 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 NMI MN Analyst PHR +A A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A I 1 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 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 Heavy Vehicles, %l-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 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 NEI 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 NM MI MEI II Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 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 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 2a0 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 III NM MI 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 III MI MN NM II 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 5& 5 922 11.3 Lane Group LOS F D F F D A E F 8 1 Approach Delay 317.9 824.4 112.2 83.3 Approach LOS F F F F Intersection Delay 133.9 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, A I Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM I NMI IS 11•11 HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements 1 M 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 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, It 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 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 MN 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, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru RT 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru RT 08 Timing G= 5.5 G= 4.5 G= 4.0 G= G= 5.0 G= 6.5 G= 70.5 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 297 22 201 60 21 26 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 445 128 250 79 60 352 139 2024 1051 251 2211 1269 v/c Ratio, X 0.67 0.17 0.80 0.76 0.35 0.07 1.50 0.87 0.09 0.51 1.06 0.16 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.59 0.68 0.15 0.64 0.82 Uniform Delay, d 49.5 52.4 48.4 56.6 56.7 36.3 57.5 21.0 6.4 47.3 21.5 2.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.24 0.11 0.35 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.40 0.11 0.12 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 3.8 0.6 17.2 34.2 3.5 0.1 257.3 4.6 0.0 1.8 37.0 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 53.3 53.1 65.6 90.8 60.2 36.4 314.8 25.6 6.5 49.1 58.5 2.2 Lane Group LOS D D E F E D F C A D E A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM Approach Delay 58.0 71.6 53.7 53.8 Approach LOS E E D D Intersection Delay 545 X 0.99 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM 1 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 Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input 4- c E N E 0 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 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, H 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 a) C U) U) U) 1 U U) t W 4 5 C O N C N X ULL 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I C 0) N O) C L 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width r 0) C l6 -J 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 L 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 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 O) C E F 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 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. 23. 5.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k C O U T N 0 e 0.50 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.15 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 172.0 3.9 44.4 1.7 3.7 0.2 100.0 27.2 0.0 5.0 72.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 227.3 60.0 93.9 54.2 59.7 427 155.5 51.0 4.6 58.5 95.9 5.3 Lane Group LOS 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 NMI NE nalyst PHR +A Analyst Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Route 11 Wellstown Road Intersection Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 1 MN Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 11 To Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 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 12.0 120 12.0 S Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 a 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 U U co a co U a 0 m C l9 J 279 503 108 144 1785 797 316 1942 867 v/c Ratio, X 1.14 0.41 0.99 1.44 1.09 0.12 0.41 1.24 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.33 0.23 0.56 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 42.5 28.7 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 I 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 Control Delay 140.8 29.3 125.9 263.1 75.0 13.7 21.7 138.1 122 Lane Group LOS F C F F E 8 C F 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM 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 +TM Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM 1 r HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 1m Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT in 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 2073 88 67 2370 255 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 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 11 �r NMI II Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 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 a 2 a 2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 21.0 G= G= G= G= 6.0 G= 5.0 G= 50.0 G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination MI NI EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 259 400 57 365 1895 846 176 1723 769 v/c Ratio, X 1.48 0.61 1.95 0.78 1.15 0.11 0.40 1.45 0.35 MI INN INN MI Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.67 a 55 a 55 0.56 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d 39.5 32.6 39.5 28.8 225 10.8 21.1 250 15.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 235.1 2.8 483.5 10.5 74.7 0.1 1.5 204.9 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 274.6 35.3 523.0 39.3 97.2 10.8 22.6 229.9 15.4 L Lane Group LOS F D F D F 8 C F B I Approach Approach Delay 181.3 523.0 87.6 204.5 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 Site Information I ntersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Area Type All other areas Date Performed 6/30/06 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario B Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NE SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TI- RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L L T L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 198 1840 123 2294 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 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 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N O N N O N N O N Al 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru RT 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru RT 08 G= 8.0 G= 4.0 G= G= G= 5.0 G= 5.0 G= 59.0 G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 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 297 22 206 60 21 26 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 254 69 220 131 69 381 159 1936 1069 262 2100 1143 v/c Ratio, X t17 0.32 0.94 0.46 0.30 0.07 1.31 1.00 0.09 0.49 t15 0.18 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.25 0.05 0.56 0.70 0.15 0.61 0.74 Uniform Delay, d 48.5 49.2 44.5 46.4 49.1 30.2 50.0 23.0 5.2 40.8 20.5 4.0 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 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 110.1 2.7 43.2 2.5 2.5 0.1 176.4 20.6 0.0 1.5 73.5 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 158.6 51.8 87.7 49.0 51.6 30.3 226.4 43.6 5.2 42.2 94.0 4.1 Lane Group LOS F D F D D C F D A D F A 0 to e- cc N 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 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A I Rights Reserved HCS 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, A I Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM !-ICS+T DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection Route 11 Wellstown Road Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Area Type All other areas Date Performed 6/30/06 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario 8 Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 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 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 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 a 2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru RT 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru RT 08 G= 8.0 G= 5.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 4.0 G= 53.0 G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 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 23 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 33.9 45.3 48.1 35.3 39.6 79.4 4.5 63.8 192.0 6.7 Lane Group LOS F D C D D D D E A E F A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 S Site Information Analyst P PHRA I Intersection R Rt 11 Charlestown Rd Agency /Co. P PHR +A J Jurisdiction Date Performed 0 07/20/06 A Analysis Year 2 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period A AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 1 1 1. 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, 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 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 854 0.95 898 1 0 3 R 607 0.95 638 0 0 TR Southbound 4 L 214 0.95 225 5 1 L 5 T 657 0.95 691 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 388 0.95 408 5 0 11 T 0.95 0 5 N 1 0 LR 12 R 126 0.95 132 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 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+ 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 0.53 0.14 0.22 0.75 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 0.42 0.46 1.00 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay, d 25.4 19.3 19.3 0.0 16.2 22.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.35 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.31 Incremental Delay, d 6.6 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.8 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 32.0 19.6 19.9 0.0 16.5 26.1 Lane Group LOS C B 8 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 Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM Approach Delay 28.9 13.5 25.2 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 23.0 X 0.78 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Site Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd All other areas 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input Number of Lanes, Ni Lane Group Volume, V (vph) Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) Start -up Lost Time, li Extension of Effective Green, e Arrival Type, AT Unit Extension, UE Filtering /Metering, 1 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb Ped Bike RTOR Volumes Lane Width Parking Grade Parking Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp EB LT TH RT WB LT 1 L 388 5 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 1.000 0.0 0 12.0 N 0 TH 0 RT 1 R 126 5 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 1.000 0.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.2 NB LT 0 N TH 1 T 854 5 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 1.000 0.0 0 12.0 0 0 RT 1 R 607 5 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 1.000 0.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.2 SB LT 1 L 214 5 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 1.000 0.0 0 12.0 N 0 TH 1 T 657 5 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 1.000 0.0 0 12.0 0 0 RT N 3.2 Phasing Timing WB Only G 28.0 Y= 6 02 G= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 03 G= Y= 04 G= Y= SB Only G 10.0 Y= 0 NS Perm G 50.0 Y= 6 07 G= Y= 08 G= Y= Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adjusted Flow Rate, v Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d Initial Queue Delay, d Control Delay Lane Group LOS EB LT TH RT WB LT 408 481 0.85 0.28 34.0 1.000 0.38 13.4 0.0 47.3 D TH RT 133 677 0.20 0.44 17.2 1.000 0.11 0.1 0.0 17.3 B NB LT TH 899 905 0.99 0.50 24.8 1.000 0.49 28.2 0.0 53.0 D RT 639 1292 0.49 0.84 2.2 1.000 0.11 0.3 0.0 2.5 A SB LT 225 245 0.92 0.60 19.8 1.000 0.44 36.3 0.0 56.1 E TH 692 1086 0.64 0.60 13.0 1.000 0.22 1.3 0.0 14.2 8 RT 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 +TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 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 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (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 olume (veh /h) 605 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a 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 v/c 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 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 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 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A R Intersection Route 11 Old Charlestown 1 1 1 Approach Delay 34.4 14.3 34.1 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 28.1 X 0.88 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright() 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 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 I ntersection Route 11 Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Gondlitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario 8 Suggested Imp. Volume and Timin In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 402 126 922 642 214 685 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 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. 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 12.0 120 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3. 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= G= G= G= 8.0 G= 46.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T a25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Grou Ca •acit Control Dela and LOS Determina ion EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 423 133 971 676 225 721 Lane Group Capacity, c 458 649 925 1299 233 1086 v/c Ratio, X 0.92 0.20 1.05 0.52 0.97 0.66 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.42 0.51 0.84 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d 321 16.4 22.0 1.9 25.9 12.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.44 0.11 0.50 0.13 0.47 0.24 Incremental Delay, d 24.5 0.2 43.5 0.4 49.2 1. 5 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 56.6 16.6 65. 23 75.1 13. Lane Group LOS E 8 E A E 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approach Delay 47.0 39.6 28.1 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 37.5 X 1.09 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: Redbud Rd /I -81 NB On Ramp North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 355 1495 7 6 1539 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 373 1573 7 6 1620 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 26 18 13 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 0 27 18 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 373 6 58 C (m) (veh /h) 384 399 0 v/c 0.97 0.02 95% queue length 11.16 0.05 Control Delay (s /veh) 72.3 14.2 LOS F B F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information S Site Information nalyst P PHRA I Intersection R Rt 11 Redbud Rd •genc !Co. P PHR +A J Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /N8 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 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 t 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 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 fo Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 a2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 45.0 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 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 as 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 B 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 G nerated: 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 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A r Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on Volume and Timing Input EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 Lane Group L LTR L L T TR L L T T Volume, V (vph) 2 26 2 27 1 15 5 576 1 1871 3 30 2 23 1 1763 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 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 a a 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 Start -up Lost Time, h 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 2.0 2 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 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 Filtering /Metering, I 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 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 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, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3 3.2 3 3.2 3 3.2 Phasing W WB Only 0 02 0 03 0 04 N NB Only N NS Perm 0 07 0 08 Timing Y G= 9.0 G G= G G= G G= G G= 28.0 G G= 56.0 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 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. 1 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 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM aNg TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information 'I s 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 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 N Y a) a) E W N D C N N E O N t) L d 1 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ,IVolume (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) u_ 1 2 ai 0) 0 LL t 7 s oa) 2 373 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 y a) U L N T as 0 2 C N ',2 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 0 O 7 O: C O U LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh /h) 373 6 58 C (m) (veh /h) 348 279 0 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) m a a D L U a) O O_ d 1 Approach LOS 1 Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario 8 East/West Street: Redbud Rd /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 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 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) 268 247 0 III 1 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 Delay (s /veh) I Approach Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information S Site Information Analyst PHR +A r Intersection Rt 11 Redbud Rd /NB on Volume and Timing Input EB W WB N NB S SB LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT L LT T TH R RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 Lane Group L LTR L L T TR L L T T Volume, V (vph) 2 26 1 18 1 13 3 355 1 1866 7 7 6 6 1 1644 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 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 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A 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 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 ,Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information MO 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 III 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 I Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A 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 a 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 IN I 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 1 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 I Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 2104 24 2018 Lane Group Capacity, c 134 462 2711 88 1952 1 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 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 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 Control Delay T co N 0 O C 0 0 MN 43.9 184.7 6.6 11.7 49.2 Lane Group LOS J D F A 8 D Approach Delay 43.9 46.5 48.7 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Delay 47.4 X 2 Intersection LOS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 G nerated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information S Site Information Analyst P PHRA I Intersection R Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. P PHR +A J Jurisdiction Date Performed 0 07/20/06 A Analysis Year 2 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period A AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A East/West Street: 1 -81 SB Ramps N North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South S Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street N Northbound S Southbound Movement 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 1 1336 2 295 1 1865 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 1406 0 0 3 310 1 1963 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 Median Type R Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 Lanes 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 Configuration T T L L T T Upstream Signal 0 0 0 0 Minor Street E Eastbound W Westbound Movement 7 7 8 8 9 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 L T T R R L L T T R R Volume (veh /h) 2 274 0 0 6 672 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 288 0 0 7 707 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 0 0 Flared Approach N N N N Storage 0 0 1 1 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 12:13 PM II NM a TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario A MR 1 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 a 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 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) 388 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) ai 0 0 LL T L j L 0 4) 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 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration C 0 0) 0 0) w 0 0 U 0 C -J 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 Control Delay (s /veh) 175.5 628.6 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) U d 1 Approach LOS 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM 1 II IMO MI 1 HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 274 0 672 1336 295 1865 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 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, Ch 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 II 1 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 II III Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 2&0 G= G= G= G= 13.0 G= 37.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= 1 1 Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination s I EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 288 471 1406 311 1963 Lane Group Capacity, c 536 478 1416 329 1914 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.03 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d 25.6 30.8 26.4 17.0 20.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.50 Incremental Delay, d 1.1 37.2 22.2 35.4 27.4 1 1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.7 68.0 48.5 52.4 47.4 Lane Group LOS C E D D D 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, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM IMMO =MI N HCS DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 388 0 406 1661 414 2183 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I Min. MI 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 0 130 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 a 2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.5 G= G= G= G= 20.8 G= 55.7 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 115.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 408 291 1748 436 2298 Lane Group Capacity, c 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 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, 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 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 8.52 63.78 Control Delay (s /veh) 50.1 976.6 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of 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 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) 1703 465 2286 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1792 0 489 2406 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 423 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 445 0 427 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh /h) 489 445 427 C (m) (veh /h) 329 0 172 v/c 1.49 2.48 95% queue length 26.83 36.29 Control Delay (s /veh) 264.3 726.5 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s /veh) Approach LOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 1 -81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing Project ID Scenario B Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 407 0 672 1495 330 1935 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start -up Lost Time, 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 0 225 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 Approach Delay 77.4 51.0 48.3 Approach LOS E D D Intersection Delay 54.5 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 I Rights Reserved HCS +TM 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 8 Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 423 0 406 1703 465 2286 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, Ii 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 1 Bike 1 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 3.2 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 vie 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+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 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 (veh /h) 0 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 26 C (m) (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 Copyright© 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #1 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1601 1591 61 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 1685 0 0 1674 64 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 80 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 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 Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM HCS+ DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= 42.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length C 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 165 220 694 894 1792 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 367 800 1168 2653 2070 907 v/c Ratio, X 0.45 0.28 0.59 0.34 0.87 0.11 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.11 0.52 0.35 0.77 0.42 0.59 Uniform Delay, d 41.7 13.4 26.7 3.6 26.4 9.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.40 0.11 Incremental Delay, d 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.1 4.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 42.5 13.6 27.5 3.6 30.6 9.0 Lane Group LOS D 8 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 0.71 I Intersection LOS C Approach LOS C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 B 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 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 20 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 I 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 Intersection Delay 1 C 29.5 X 0.79 I Intersection LOS C Approach LOS Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 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 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, Na 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 25 7 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 289 Intersection LOS C Approach LOS 1 C Copyright 2005 University of Florida, A Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:25 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 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, Ne 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru RT 07 08 Timing G= 22.5 G= G= G= G= 31.5 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T 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 31.1 X =0.88 Intersection LOS C Approach LOS 1 C Copyright 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 Fl rida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM 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 Row Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 373 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 373 C (m) (veh /h) 239 v/c 1.56 95% queue length 22.87 Control Delay (s /veh) 309.0 LOS F Approach Delay (s /veh) 309.0 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM 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 Rutherfo d Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 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 O 2005 University of Florida, At Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 Site Drive #3 Agency /Co. PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07/20/06 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North /South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 1983 2039 197 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 2087 0 0 2146 207 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h) 441 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 a 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh /h) 0 0 464 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 464 C (m) (veh /h) 211 v/c 2.20 95% queue length 36.40 Control Delay (s /veh) 591.3 LOS F Approach Delay (s /veh) 591.3 Approach LOS F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Total Split (s) WaralfSpl itle/cra Maximum Green (s) YellocreTime (s) All-Red Time (s) Lead/Lag‘"::.c Lead-Lag Optimize? yehiclelE Recall Mode Act Effct.Gree Actuated g/C Ratio ;_/,_8 5 aitr Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay None None C-Min C-Min None None 4326628.-- 58.8 7 43.2 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 0.39 0.39 062 O29 T6070.22 ThTo 0,01 26.8 21.5 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 0.0 979 p.pir 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 21.5 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 Approach Delay 25.1 18.7 26.5 Approach LOS c' B C 90th %ile Green (s) 56.0 56.0 42.0 42.0 56.0 56.0 90th Voile 'Term Code Hold Hold :Coord,COord p'aIS Gap 70th %ile Green (s) 48.1 48.1 49.9 49.9 48.1 48.1 Scenario A 9/6/2006 T100 :10:01-LA 0.0CY'l 0:0; 10:0= `,lr 7 66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 6010°/060.0% 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 .A.0".? 411.li40;7,7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 tr'1 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 Lane „Group EBL EBT,..". :07ita r SW_L VSWR 70th %ile�Tefm Code. Hold'. Coord :,Coord .Gap' i G a, 50th %ile Green (s) 41.6 41.6 56.4 56.4 41.6 41.6 50th %ile Term Code Hold Hold 'Coord Coord Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 34.4 34.4 63.6 63.6 34.4 34.4 30th%ile Term Code `,Hold Hold; Coord Coord Gap., 10th %Ile Green (s 25.9 25.9 72.1 72.1 25.9 1 0t11 0 /ode Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord 4 G Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 99 271 2 30 Queue Length'95th (ft) 26 Internal Link Dist (ft) Tum Bay Lengthx(9)_.. Base Capacity (vph) Starvation C Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage.Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio IntersectionISum mary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 1M1,0 �r Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset 0 (O% Referenced'to phase 6 Natural Cycle: 55 ControfType Actuated Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio 0.91 Inter SignalliDelay 23. Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% Analysis Penod.(min) 15 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates t (p 4/ 0.43 0.20 0.60 0.22 0.07 0.68 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 Ii• 04 66 ..�rU J �Y 08 F 05 441 .tea a: zl 66s I' 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 EBL EBT,..". :07ita r SW_L VSWR 70th %ile�Tefm Code. Hold'. Coord :,Coord .Gap' i G a, 50th %ile Green (s) 41.6 41.6 56.4 56.4 41.6 41.6 50th %ile Term Code Hold Hold 'Coord Coord Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 34.4 34.4 63.6 63.6 34.4 34.4 30th%ile Term Code `,Hold Hold; Coord Coord Gap., 10th %Ile Green (s 25.9 25.9 72.1 72.1 25.9 1 0t11 0 /ode Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord 4 G Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 99 271 2 30 Queue Length'95th (ft) 26 Internal Link Dist (ft) Tum Bay Lengthx(9)_.. Base Capacity (vph) Starvation C Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage.Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio IntersectionISum mary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 1M1,0 �r Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset 0 (O% Referenced'to phase 6 Natural Cycle: 55 ControfType Actuated Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio 0.91 Inter SignalliDelay 23. Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% Analysis Penod.(min) 15 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates t (p 4/ 0.43 0.20 0.60 0.22 0.07 0.68 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 LaneiGrOUplka..4 NBLI.,11BRI.,-24.1SEL.,_-.SEF,t4iSER2 Lane Configurations '1) tt r tt V 1 r r r I (vphp1) .1900 1900- 1900 19 1900 1960 1906 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 50 50 Z 50 --50 50-k 50,- 56.: 50 50 50 50 50 f railing Deteaor 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 5 2.- 9 1 5 7;:":- ...P1::k11 5 9 15 :1 9h p :".i 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fri ITT_ .174- 0 6563 f'..3 0.8507 I 0:850 0.850 'Mr Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said:I FIOV(prot)11:KT.. 3338,- 3438 97.7343153 1538"- 7 ::1538 Fit Permit 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 s 'I Id FloW7(perm)a-ifii 3335'-' 117:19 34381i ..:.1719 r '1538y3335 i_15381538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd.-.FlaW(RTOR)-7 !It- 2T: -,-.4.201 7 r 22 :4:till.- :..;-1 132 Headway Factor 1.00 1.06 too 1.00 1.06 too 1:00 1.06 too 1.66 1.66 1.00 Link ,Speed-(mPh)--.-.- ,:-:::51--.=, :457- f 45L-,-,.. 73074 -;',ti,-4- 30 '..:;15;. Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 TiWiTel-TIM TL-7(i.11:17 412 r.8 '177", r r ".717,7 2010 ..7 Volume (vph) 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 57 20 25 282 21 291 Freak Hei 0.95; 0.9695:. /-0957 0.95 .'-:-095 0.95 .09501195 -,1095 J095 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 60 21 26 297 22 306 Zin G}500-FloW. '.1767-779674} 23 760, .71:. 17... 1 -26?-37297 722 306 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over Protected:PhasesN2. -J' 4 :171.-- -,!4‘2, 2 yi--7 67:72 7 7 2 7 '3 ffr. Permitted thases 4 8 2 6 DetectorPhases ',5--::- T.: '''''.±.72,-.4 -4;e4.1i;;;;:: c2 3 8•..r6. 2„2 ...737,7t:. 6 63 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 -2 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MinirTitim Split (s);;;-..4.--7!- :lob '#i 1001O0 100 ,.100 ,1007.:A160--,;;10 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 t.t:f77:1 65.8% 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 Yellow Time (s): 2 4.0cr, :40:t': -..r ,.....4.0 ....2. 7 0 T:7 ,.4 All-Rea Time (s) 2 2.0 Z76 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 .0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag; Lag. 2' 'Lag n Lead- Lead :-FT7,..7 7.7 Colds: La6 Lead-Lag Optimize? Ries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vetiicle 1 .'3 =7 0 1• 01-• .:!307, 7: 307;••••/ 30; H;:,. 3Q, 7 '30, RecailMode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None ACt Effct.Green ,(s) 1201 .75.1::_. 86.1: 11 i.: 75.67 89.0 70 -7.0 18: 100 100 120 Actu gio Ratio 0.10 0.63 0.72 0.10 0.62 0.74 0.66 0.06 0.16 0.08 6.08 b.i 0 c/cRati o i -7. 0.62 ..0.82 008 .076 1.09°.. 0.17 ,060:. '021. 0.10'r:1.07 017, .41.12 Control Delay 60.7 21.5 1.2 78.9 72.2 0.9 79.7 59.1 14.6 125.2 54.6 119.1 Queuepelay Op 0.0 .0.0 6.6 23.1-: 0.0 Op 0.0 0.0-4 0.0 00 00 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 ilt58 Approach Delay 24.5 87.4 59.8 119.7 A OTOIC li 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 96th 7..RaTirrii Code Max Max c°614" Max Max mak cbOrd 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 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 3 t \I o2 o6 le m3 o4 1 tri1j11,1 4 '.31 07 o8 79 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 Ilane,GroupaSIF.i:'rn:VEBIzi4+ 70th %ile Term Code ,Mai Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max MaX Max 50th °/oile 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 50th %ileTerfn7Code. s Max. Hold Coord Max H Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.6 73.0 8.6 0.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 30th %ile TerM:Code .'&4_ Max Hold Coord Max Max Max CO CdPid:, Max l' Max Max Max 10th %He 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 LI Otti.%ileTeriKCOde'Th. Max j-ioid, Coord •,.q Max" mgit CoOrd:Cgord Gap Max Max Max OueueleFgth (ft) 80 519 0 99 -1 7 6 21 0 46 16 2 -131 16 -176 OlieU 630:c 14;'#197;#1208\ 43,':,1 #222 44 #359 Internal Link Dist (ft) te 753 802 1588 Turn Beytength (ft),, .z.: =gr. 7 z Base Capacity (vph) 334 2152 1131 172 2149 1193 100 100 262 278 128 273 StarvatitndUctrif., 0;-:,' :o -:;,01.,-:=1,90i= =2-.3-4e,o.: 0= T. 0 --az- 7 0 u o:,-T, 0 apliiicic ikeaiar..i. 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 StdThge ce 0:S-& 0 .72:_yo :oi c :-2., o: -ti-_o4 __4-it•Eo Firt-;;;o: 7:if- 0 -t. 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.82 0.08 0.75 1.14 0.17 0.60 0.21 0.10 1.07 0.17 1.12 Area Type: Other Cycletin 7;177 „T.- 7-- Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offief. Relerenced.ter.phase.a:NBLStart offGreen7=7 .4., i*- i- 4 ..t Natural Cycle: 120 Control Tjpe: Aotuate'd .7 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.12 Iritersettion Signal Delay 66 7n. ;‘.7 .:yinteisection.-110S: Et- 2.4 .r...e.,: '-7"&„ -:I Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F ArialiSislreffO .'24- -5 ac,..4.,„ Z.:7e: 1 --1.4 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. 1 77 L Queue shown maximum after tWolEYcleanZi ,7!:. 'f 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. 72usue-,shownLisInaximum:,after: lam, ,..T. 7i:i f„11. A S lits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 -14 C 4- 4 Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions La efGroup' Lane Configurations IdealFlow (vphpl) Turning Speed (mph) caneUtil. Factor,:` Frt EIt,Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Elf .Permdted Satd. Flow (perm)_ Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link {Jistance_(ft)1yi Travel Time (s) Volume (vph)` Peak Hour Factor Adi Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign r ihtersectioh Summa Area Type Other,P Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity, Uttllzation 59;0 /u Analysis Period (min) 15 EBL ENT "sWBTrcWBR a SEL SER s _i t tt r r 1900 1900..1900' 1900 1900. 190011_': 15 9 15 9 `1.00 l'.00 1.00 1:00' 1.00'' 0.850 0.865 0 1810 1538 1538 ;1.00 0 1810 3438 .00..1.0 45 45 1172` 2.5 17.8 1006, X1.77,1,; 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 1059; 1864 43 0 1059 1864 43 Free1Free 0 26 0.95 0 1565 U Level ofService B` Scenario A 9/6/2006 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions liane;,G`oup, l&- #`EBL aEBTs EBR WBL WBT44WBR NBL2S NBL` tVNBR „4SEL,a SE13 Lane Configurations Ideal flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading.Detector Trailing Detector (ft) TumingSpeed (mph) Lane Util. Factor !Ft: Flt Protected Satd Flow (prdt) Flt Permitted Satd Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd'FIow (RIO R) Headway Factor Link Speedr(mph)- Link Distance (ft) Trammel Time (s)a' Volume (vph) 355 1495 Peak Hour Facto Adj. Flow (vph) Ern roup'Flow (vph)- Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector; Phases: Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s)'' Total Split (s) Total,Spld;( %o) Maximum Green (s) YellowrtTine (s)> All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s)j Recall Mode Act tEffct Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio e£^ Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %Ile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 3 7 1 4 1 1 P 'I Tr+ 1 tt r Y 19.00' 1900 1900 1900 1906 7 1900;, :1900' 1900' ,1900 .1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 4.0 0; 50 50 50 50 =i 50 50=' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 15 9'" 15 "15 -9 -_15 9 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.999•' 0 850 91 r r, 0.950 0.950 ..f 0.963 1719 3435 0 1719 34 15 0 4',1687, 0.078 0.160 0.963 141 3435 0 4290 1 1538 041687v Yes Yes Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1619 995 "226 6 1539 350 26 18 13 0:95 0 95 0 9 0 95, 0:95 0 95 ,4 0 95 :i 0.95 0:95 .0: 374 1574 7 6 1620 368 27 19 14 0 0 `374J58.1. 0- 6 =1620 368 0 X60 0 0 0 1 pm *pt 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ,107 1;71 s1bA 100 25.0 76.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 0.0 14M 14.0 278%844% 0 0% 56 7 %r56 0 0% 15 6 15Te 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 40, 40 x4.04 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead- Lag ,Ta9 Yes Yes Yes 3.0 '30 30 None C -Max C -Max C -Max 72.5 72.5' =48 1- 9( 0. 0.54 1.00 0. 04 0.87 0;24" 0 31."° 2 9.5 0.2 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 9.5 0.2 34.7 A A A C' 7.8 34.7 A C 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.57 36.0 3.6 20.4 0.6 56.5 4.2 14.2 B. 19.0 70.0 Max Coord 19.0 70.0 Min 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 Coord Coord Hold`` Max' 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 6 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions baheiGroupteXis, AtEBIL%-SEBT-42.,. 'EB „k.,-..,BL" 4.A.WB,Tik NBtrejNBRnsaSELISSERWar, 70th %ile Term Code Max Cbord;, CoOrd COOrd Hold i i: Max 50th %ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 50th :%ile Term Code; Mak Coord Coord' Hold/. Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 18.3 70.0 45.7 45.7 8.0 8.0 30th;%ile,Terrn.Code -.1. Gap:, Coord Coord Coord :if e".ihlold ,fif Max.' 10th %ile Green (s) 13.1 72.5 53.4 53.4 5.5 5.5 10th %ile TeTni.Code ..;Gap, .Y.Th Coord Coord, GariyGaii Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 96 0 56 0 24 Queue Length:95thlftyrii#269„"t,150 '4" M1 #12t 4. ±60 .t..-j.i.. .iN 621- Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Turn:Bay LeRbth (ft) r, 77 ---7-. r.-- :tr-.• Base Capacity (vph) 482 2767 157 1865 1538 191 Starvgtion,Cap Reductn r .f 0 II _0:::".:/-- :c. _:_tirc_ Spillback Cap Reductn 6 0 0 0 0 0 Stor. CariReductn 075'; alL c ..':'.:0 -t 0 .,...;:r Off'..r. "k '7 A';: r Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.76 0.04 0.87 0.24 0.31 Intersection.iSurnmary:-3 1 ii....;..."- -tn-rai-..3_%Qkf...t......A„v-._i_.;:.!.._. to r Area Type: Other Cycle Le „77 --tx- Lii...". .r-.. ..--4:::: Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offse Natural Cycle: 65 -1 1' 4 7.1779^ r "Fa' ?A '"7"r7 7 ---r.p:/ pontrelype:FAcib -:-...-A. 7 ......-.1-0 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 IntersectiorhLOS13, Cs:........._„ Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis- Period (rnip) r ....,,t4 i IL s 1 ,i,?..hS It 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. i. Queue shown is:maximum:after twocycle'S`::-. ;77.,-!-.... 2 -irs- It c.7i I 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 t C It- 4 1 o2 TVs\ 1,11A -r 4 1 05 14recial,.tc--a 0 25ffse_73 o8 517rilrt .z4eralisflZ;tcar-r IE O Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions tane3Groupa,,, Lane Configurations tt Ideal' Flow (vphpl) A 1900 1900'y Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turning Speed Jrnph):7,-1E "15 4: Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Scenario A 9/6/2006 t P 1 EBRTtaWJ3LaEltaaRrnNBljgNlB r tt 4 r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900F: 1900 19 1900 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, 50 0 0 0 0 0 9. 9 15 9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 'Protected 0.9 aarFI „..7 •,18 4.43., Fit Permitted 0.095 sptdF,lovv:(perm)::- 0-,343827:„1538r.;;:172, 343 Right Turn on Red Yes SetclY_FloW(RTOR): 41 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 LinkSpeeth(mpri)-! 4 Link Distance (ft) 833 62 TraVelifirriet(sUs: ;7?, c;77,!12.6 9 Volume (vph) 0 1336 658 295 186 PeaktfourFactor,3 .5. '"0:95?- 0.95 p.p Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1406 693 311 196 Lan&Group,Flovv Ln14067-4:69 Turn Type Free pm+pt prOle 7f47'11, ,71:7;73L-2• Permitted Phases Free 8 1 7,2. Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 filiFiiiiS :77,7 10 a :1 0: .0 r n •:::0 L100 'art '71011:7100` To Split 0.0 42.0 0.0 15.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 ticiaLSIK( Maximum Green (s) 36.0 9.6 51.0 27.0 076 27.0 Yellow Time} (s)",.y„ 2: f.,: 'Hy',77; i 40:cf ,-470i;:..'7_,I 1: ,.;.i `,5, H 4.0 ,41 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead-Lag Optim ize? Vehicle E2dension.(s) 1Recaii Mode 'got EfferGieen (§y- 0.950 t3: :kg:J.:2. ,07 7 ;i:: 13.:.; 0":!..; 7 1 0 1538 0.950 0 P.:4 0,T 0 71,0? ....i.7.... Cr, Yes Yes Yes ri-.. 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ....§1 Ili Lth 35 t:::: .7,..:.:S.f.._..... '..:_q.91_;17:7i. 0 487 346 .4, 7 nal 5 0 0 0 2i4 0 672 5:,' 0.95 ±095:;-0.95]L ..0795 0.95 3 0 0 0 0 288 0 707 3.1-2;;±,' OW 0 n' 0 ..-":2887,:, 707 Prot Perm .C `:::_iir..f 1. ::7!;-±f-.71:17 6 4 Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3 3 7 310`. 3:0 b-Max None C-Max Min Min M in 38.0 .90.0..7 531047 53.0 T '290- Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 1.00 0.59 0.50 6.3 0.3 fie Ratio 1: 0.97' 0745 '±1707:. 0.97 6.52 1141 Control Delay 43.7 1.0 93.4 26.4 2 8.9 22'1.6 Queue Delay 4 00 0.0 0.0 23.9 6.0 57.3 Total Delay 43.7 1.0 93.4 50.3 28.9 278.9 LOS IS A 2 C F Approach Delay 29.6 56.2 206.5 Approach LOS O E F 90th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord I Max- Coord Hold Max 70th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Max 27.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 8 \11. o1 it o3 -11 o4 hi i o6 4- 1 o8 33%:- !t'i ctr Ira k Kt 57r 7;a i-:,2:4-- '7' 21 •Titi 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 Irwene:G-r-arouPle, :t44( JEBL»EBT 70th %Ile Term Code Cobrd 50th %He Green (s) 36. 50th %Ile Term "Cede 7 Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 36.6 30th %ile TeFro COOrcl 10th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10t12%tle Term Cede Queue Length 50th (ft) 400 Queue Length 95th (ft)- ,;:=7 #560 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 Turn,paylengti Base Capacity (vph) 1452 Sta"rvatioTi:taciaiduefriti,,, :To nd Phases: AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 15: Route 11 SB ram ,EBMW:131.,;VV.BT Cc:6rd: 9.0 51.0 Max Coord' 9.0 51.0 Coorckt 9.0 51.0 Max Coord.' 0 -154 325 540 -7 7 1538 290 2025 0 0 166 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 r Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.45 1.07 1.06 W B RatIN ETL7./TaNN BRYS/LSBIkMs BTes B R Hold Max Max 27.0 27.0 27.0 Hold -.Max Max 27.0 27.0 27.0 HoId Max- Max 27.0 27.0 27.0 Hold.; Ma k::: Max 132 -545 #764 yr_ 407 266 TE:i7 a4 503 10. Scenario A 9/6/2006 0 42 0.52 1.53 Area Type: Other CycIeLengthd Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offgef.13 EBTirca 8:w BTL:; :TCTTCT7-71;71i17 Natural Cycle: 120 COTIVOI TypierAEU a led -C OWE tH,LIT)),;;;t7 7'`7 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.41 I rite rsectiOThSignal: 13:7J A: T"--' I ritA LOS Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F ILY. Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. 7 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. v Queue:shown maximum two cycl m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneG rroupz s z 1 EBT EBR. .,Ba Lane Configurations Tt TT Ideal Flow (vphpl), 1900 1900 1900 .1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft)- 50_' 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 Turning.Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt- Flt Protected Satd:'Flow (prof) Flt Permitted Satd Flow (perm` 3438 Right Turn on Red Satd Fjow (RTOR) Headway Factor 1.00 LinK,S Link Distance (ft) 620 TravelrTime (s) Volume (vph) PeakHOurFactor Adj. Flow (vph) Lane TGroup Flow (vph)' Turn Type Protected Pluses'," Permitted Phases Detector Phases' "r'_ Minimum Initial (s) Minimum.' Split,(s)`i!.F Total Split (s) TOR' Maximum Green (s) Yellow?Tlme (s)j' All -Red Time (s) L' /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode C -Max Act.Effct Gre_en7(s) ,59 0` Actuated g/C Ratio Yes 3438 0.66 ye r Control Delay 6.7 Queue Delay Total Delay LOS' Approach Delay Approach °LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 90th %Ile Term Code:; Coo 70th %ile Green (s) 55.0 0.3 7.0 7.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates r 1900:' 1900, 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 15 9 0.97 1.00 0 :850 0.950 P 3438''3335" 1538`. 0.950 3438 3335'.1538 Yes C -Max Min Min 59 0 23.0 23.0 0.66 0.26 0.26 0 73 70 :74` 063 1.8 34.5 31.6 0.4 0.01 0:5 2.2 34.5 32.1 A C: .i. C. 2.2 33.8 A C 55.0 23.0 23.0 Chord Maze Max' 55.0 23.0 23.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 10 4 02 P" 04 291e7A'act'S.21.S0Til Et 611611.1qQ7SZLECIPENAWW-141. ,x t a tneH n TI-C 2 1 57 7 1/11 4 4— 08 61.7fitat-,A•fatc...T" 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 1 41— 4 Lahe'cGrouphicatt. 4 aEBTergaEBR.VPIWBL •!.4WEgprANBR.3N13R.aierttay t4tglIa;'--.4.41.ffiV.:ittctkia ,,.thafcc:i 70th %ile Co Ord t k Cdord Max Max ...[C.: 50th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 50th %ile-TerM'CiSde COordl t' -v.: CoOrcf Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 58.0 58.0 20.0 20.0 30th %ile Tert:Codef poord,':'.: 1:-) Coord Gap -Gapi 10th %ile Green (s) 61.9 61.9 16.1 16.1 10th °/0 Co 6rd COOrd L- Gap GOP' 'I.:- r'' 1 1 1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 4 162 113 Queue Length 95th (ft);. -c. di 0;4:.; ;:--."-'ll 1-1'7 1: ..221 .'193:: c- ::"I I• 1..: Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 TurnBay LengthI(fq 1 .7.77 .7, 1 it ‘,7. t:•' ..J.„, :•;c :.;41,13i; 3 ‘i Base Capacity (vph) 2253 2253 926 448 StaniationCaPRRe EI.7 1, 12';•Ti.§;0 -2,1 ..4••• :•C'' :l Spillback Cap Reductn 7 90 0 35 StOi 0 :t„ i 7 0 b:!0 7 7 TT 5, Yx;;;. c :7 IF:7 rt;':': 7.1 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.63 Intersection:StImmarik:‘ Area Type: Other e7:.0: Cycl Length 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offief30:(33%);.Refelefibed tOrpliare7.14:EBT-andj8:WBIrStart..61:Grgel-T7-77777,-:±c-c--,t. _71 Natural Cycle: 50 QifitrolTYPe:.Actinted;COO7dinatedi? Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 IFielgettion-SignaFDela9710.74 2 77777 LOST: k 747.7•77 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F An lys rs Period l(r`iiin)15 :Tr yzo .-4 7, m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Iits and Phases: 17: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 El3F41.4NNELV:,NET Lane Configurations r ttt Ideal Flow (vphbl) 1900 1900 1900 1900:. 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detect& (ft) 50 86,, 50 50 50. Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15yi 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Minimum Initial (s) MiiiiFU OTC?;1070 Total Split (s) 23.0 33.0 33.0 iT61118Plit:(%)44 Maximum Green (s) 17.0 27.0 27.0 yallow Tirnacs1 40 40 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag ?"4 3 -Learr" Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Veii61eExteniio7n7(S) 3.0.-77:3;o: Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 116 29.07 ActuatedgibWalk 0.13 1.00 ■fic Ratio 0.38 014 0.6 Control Delay 36.3 0.2 27.0 Queue_Delai 0.0 0.0Y. Total Delay 36.3 0.2 27.0 Satd.Flow (prot) C 3335 4940 _1538 -:,A 7 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd Flow;(perni)-).;: 1538:2.- -,1:3 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd.- 'it? T:'; Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link S (rTh3a)V,--i ,r 30:7U- i 1:24if3:74 ..-i,,- Link Distance (ft) 1445 1679 827 Travelqati ,(sc- -7 2j:732.84 a 254 A 2:5; Volume (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 Fre Hour.:Fabtor-c-, 0.95; t10:951 0.95::-. 0195 0.951 ::,-,:.0.954. -,i,.:.: 1.77.:7 77 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 220 694 894 1792 99 Lane Group-Flow (vph)';. 220;, ?-3/47 -_;t :y,-7,:_f tit Turn Type custom Prot prn+ov Protected Phases rtrs 7 "_'__LI, "7:?..- ;9, -e,.8:;:: :::t: 77L .:s Permitted Phases 4 8 ri t t Phas f 1:--7,-- z r r-r: '5- Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %ile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4/ SW, Ftt- 1900 4.0 so 0 1.00 0.85M 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 a; 33.0 34.0 23.0 57.0 6 7%37C256% 63 7 27.0 28.0 17.0 51.0 t4OC ,-40 40 .r2 ITO 2.0 2.0 2.0 75 Yes Yes C-Min None None None 37.4 -J..- 53.0 Y'r 13.32 0.42 0.59 081 0:87 0111 5, 31.9 30.7 4.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 15.7 29.7 29.3 12.3 27.0 27.0 27.0 32.7 12.3 51.0 Gap CoordtCOord' COord Max Gap Hold 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 Lane_Group t# 'EBL 70th %Ile Term'' Code Gap 50th %Ile Green (s) 9.6 50th %ile Term Code Gap' 30th %Ile Green (s) 8.5 30th %ile Term Code Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 10th %ile Term Code 'Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 QueueLength,95th (ft) 73 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1365 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) StarvatibQcapReductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage.Cap Reductn:_ Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection ,Summary_„ Area Type: Other Cycl e,Length 9G Actuated Cycle Length: 90 1 4/ LEBRF NEL -SNET,TSYWTWSWF Coord 'Coord Coord' 'Max Gap Hold 27.0 27.0 27.0 35.4 9.6 51.0 Coord Coord Goord' Max, Gap Hold 27.0 27.0 27.0 36.5 8.5 51.0 Coord Coord, Coord Max,. Gap.,.Hotd 27.0 27.0 27.0 38.0 7.0 51.0 Coord Coord :Coord =Max Gap:, Hold; 0 162 214 333 8 1599 747 0.23 0.14 0.65 0.81 0.87 0.11 Offset;' 80 (89 %0); Referenced to phase aNET;and'S Natural Cycle: 60 Cohtrol _Typ e:. Actu ated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 IhtersectiohSignal Delay;�28 1 _ilntersection LOS: Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis,Penod (min) 15 u 13C 7 1 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles °:e Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 3: 02 33 1sue i l l a a 1, 57 s` Z %:t 05 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates T 04 —71 07 23 08 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LariejGroup' Lane Configurations IdealFlow(vphpl), Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected° Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted: Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factor% Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft)' Travel Time (s) Volume.(vph)e Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow. (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign Control 1 IntersectionSummery Area Type Other Control Type: Unsignalized EBL;?4EBR 1900 :1900:- 15 9 1:00:- 1.00`' 0.8 0 1565 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52'2% r Analysis Period (min) 15 Scenario A 9/6/2006 tt +tT 1900' 1900 -1900 -1900 15 1.00 1 0.95 .0.91 0.91 NEL ANETz SWT svy 0.988 0 3438 4881 9 0 1565 0 3438 4881 1 00 1.00<�`. 1 00 30 f 45 45 1342 '2411-71679 30.5 36.5 25.4 0 -132' 0 15087c17637. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 CQ',1587 X1856;; 139 0 1587 2012 Free U Level of'SerQice AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 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; Grou Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl)' Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (Mph) Lane Util Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd;Flow. (prot) Flt Permitted Satdd Flow (perm), Right Turn on Red Satd?.Flow(RTOR) Headway Factor Lmk_Speed?(nph) Link Distance (ft) TravetTime(s)_ Volume (vph) Peak +Hour Factor' Adj. Flow (vph) Larie_G rot' p FlaW,,(vph Turn Type Protected Phases< Permitted Phases DetectohPhases' x Minimum Initial (s) Minimum $plit''(s)Ti. Total Split (s) TotalsSplit ".y Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s)c' All -Red Time (s) Lead/Lag Yr Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extensi sion.(s) Recall Mode ActEffct Greer Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay. Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS' 90th %ile Green (s) 90th. %i1e TermCode 70th %ile Green (s) t 1900•:1900 4.0 50' 0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates e-- Z 4 4/ BSS vvBR;tiSWL!SWR t r 1900 -1900 19002 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 too 1.00 1.00 1 o0 1.00 1 .0o 0;850 0.850 0.950 0.950 171 810 1810_ 1538 1219 ,1538; 0.950 •1810 1810T 1810 538 ;1:719 1538. E Yes Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.o0 1.00 1.00 1172 1862 1638 28.2 C, 37 854 607 388 126 214 657 0:95.. 0:95 A.95 0.95 899 639 408 133 225 692 899 639< 408 =133 4.2 Perm Perm 4! 6 2.0 2.0 X30 3'0_ 3.0171 None None C -Min C -Min None None 61.0 61,0- :4 `41 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.90 064; 060'. __020_ 0.24 0_72 30.7 19.4 33.3 5.1 12.6 14.5 0 0 30.7 19.4 33.3 5.1 12.6 14.5 c'.. B,. a A B B 26.0 26.3 14.1 C. C B, 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 Max Max Coord' Coord'`-'- Max Max 65.3 65.3 32.7 32.7 65.3 65.3 Scenario A 9/6/2006 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 100 -10:0 100,._100 10:0 10.07- 1 66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 6050% 60 0% `40 0 %a'40 0% _60..0 %07.60..0% 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 40 4.0:1 40 =40 4'0 4t0 "i_ 2.0 2.0 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 LfaneIGToup2t..gWt'St- 70th .`'/oile Terrri Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50tti:%ile;Tei Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30thffoileTerrn 10th %ile Green (s) :I 0111 TokleZerrn Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Lerigth 95th Internal Link Dist (ft) 1 4- t 4/ L-A:tEB STLINY BROSWL -S 9Y,13 e Max. Max Coord Coord HoId Hoyt: 65.2 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 Gap,. Gap Cddid Coord Hold HoId 56.8 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 Gap Gap :f Coord 'Hordy;. HoId 47.7 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 Gap .'Gap;Coord ,,Coord Holdi 2 457 253 253 0 66 186 408 34 3 61: 1092 1782 1558 Base Capacity (vph) 1055 1055 709 684 1002 1002 §193a11 011 PP.1$Pc..11LOP 0 0 «0 tik,:;;;;9_21:,„ 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 '0' Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 Iriter.sedtionvSLIMmary Area Type: Other QT/Cillii Actuated Cycle Length: 110 OffieT0(0°/0);',Referefdft6phas 6:WBT-7Starf Natural Cycle: 60 ConfrokType:,Actuated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Iriteitsectidri;Sign51 Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E AW613;jfs `..rnITE -4:1r 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue‘showmispaximurrraftectwoicyclesf Phase conflict between lane groups. S lits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 -10 04 4 .Ia 44 /r 06 44 66rsaSfaaatSr 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 LfaneIGToup2t..gWt'St- 70th .`'/oile Terrri Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50tti:%ile;Tei Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30thffoileTerrn 10th %ile Green (s) :I 0111 TokleZerrn Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Lerigth 95th Internal Link Dist (ft) 1 4- t 4/ L-A:tEB STLINY BROSWL -S 9Y,13 e Max. Max Coord Coord HoId Hoyt: 65.2 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 Gap,. Gap Cddid Coord Hold HoId 56.8 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 Gap Gap :f Coord 'Hordy;. HoId 47.7 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 Gap .'Gap;Coord ,,Coord Holdi 2 457 253 253 0 66 186 408 34 3 61: 1092 1782 1558 Base Capacity (vph) 1055 1055 709 684 1002 1002 §193a11 011 PP.1$Pc..11LOP 0 0 «0 tik,:;;;;9_21:,„ 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 '0' Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 Iriter.sedtionvSLIMmary Area Type: Other QT/Cillii Actuated Cycle Length: 110 OffieT0(0°/0);',Referefdft6phas 6:WBT-7Starf Natural Cycle: 60 ConfrokType:,Actuated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Iriteitsectidri;Sign51 Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E AW613;jfs `..rnITE -4:1r 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue‘showmispaximurrraftectwoicyclesf Phase conflict between lane groups. S lits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions tfane&Grodpae. Lane Configurations tt r at+ l v '1 P t r r Ideal Flow (VphPI) .1900 1900 1900 1900: 1906:-; 1900' 1900 1900 1900:1900 1900. r- 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:- 56,: .56 56'-':-.,:, 50,ir 50 :50? 50 50 50 .50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TurnIng speed (rni5h) 15 't 9 7:1 15 9 ,..15-. -15:.1'.‘ 9 .,15-. 9 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt ritf 0850 f z• ,.-t ;.0.8567 0850 0.850'6.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd: Flovy;(prot)fi.--.7 -'3335 ;3438 1538 :1719if.34385T, 1538 f 17197 1719 --.1 538 e.:'' 3335 1538 1538 .a.-... Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sld?Elovi(ierM)f... „3335.:: 3438- '1538 7.17.19 171971719 3335-. 1538' 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sifd...Flovii(RTORy kti: 228; 12:ii„•J I 3.- 148 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Liiik Sbeed(Mph);.-!S.',It: '•!•.:a-i l'a''1,4515 7 N. 7-77::: ":',30:: :5 30:.:F A Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 TraVel&TirTie7(s). .4`;:i 12.6S.: 37.9 7'17 kl. tf:4:77;??, Volume (vph) 271 2032 88 67 2267 255 48 29 28 333 30 333 Perak Hair Factork!' 095 0 95'.; 0 95 0'95 lb 95' 695 0 95 095 95Th 95095 95A195 Adj. Flow (vph) 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 La.neiGraLlpi:floWA),-,. yPh=28-.2139,;c:::1937; ,..'.351 ?Urn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov -s piit pm+ov Prot over ProtectedPhW r t::.' h L v 2 4 0 ,-z- 7 ,3,7,.... fi: s .L.: 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phases 7 -4 c2 te 3 8 t" 2 1 2 --r-3 '6' 7 7 6 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 %co 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum SPlit(s).-/-7,10.07.10:0C10:0• r. 10.0 ::1.10,10710.0 100 :..1070 Total Split(s) 17.0 83.0 12.0 10.0 76.0 15.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 rOtal:Spi it (y.) ;A 52%c:6972676710,0%: 813 2.5%71 83 14.2 Maximum Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 KellovvTime (s) --.1'.':, :::.z. 4101:1; 4:0- 4.07k.: i4:0.:::: 4.0 4.0 .1:405:4q-4.0!- ,..4.0. a. 40, 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 [read/Lag ±7 ---ilLead c; Ligl7 ii-T12- .'''..7..7 I:Lead:H. f'r,.:21Ceaci, Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extefiiion (s) 3.0f 3.0.4.:-,310 '8.0 3.0!.• a.0.,y 30. :3.0 3.(?7.i... 3(:) 30 L 'Z'T..3 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None AelEfftIgreen (s): ''.13.0„ :790, 90.9 6.61 7 72.9:th.C 831:1;:,..- 1.9 7 7.9: ;13T0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.66 0.76 0.05 0.60 0.69 0.67 0.07 0.12 0.09 6.06" o.ii '/c Ratio ±.0,79;! 0.951 ccoci. 0.83:: 1.16., 0.221 0.27.4- 015* 114 0 23 1.17 Control Delay 68.5 29.0 0.9 114.4 101.4 1.2 66.e 59.5 25.1 142.0 54.9 135.1 Ocieue Delay 00 0.0 0.6 0.6 18.5 0.0: OM 0.0 0.0 OM 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.5 29.0 0.6 114.4 119.9 1.2 66.5 59.5 25.1 142.0 54.9 135.1 [os E p, A r F2,- X. E E C F. D 7, F Approach Delay 32.5 108.1 53.7 134.9 Appitach LOS C F.: D F 90th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max- Coord Coord Max Max MaX Max 76th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 Scenario A 9/6/2006 3 W- 4 4 4 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build-out Conditions 9/6/2006 _3 Lanearoupic,-...,,, tictEBT-S.EB13 IWBRRNE31;2---NBLktiNBR'SELOSER;(,SER2 70th•%ileTerrn. Code Max- ‘Max-. Coord "Max f 'Max: Max Coord Coord Max- Max Max Max 50th %He Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 50th,%ile Terr Max Max Coord Max Max Max COord Max ,"7;' Max' Max" Max 20th %iie Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.6 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 30th:%ile Terrn Max Max Coord Mai( Max Coorcl_ COord-i„: Max Max::, Max Max 10th %He Green (s) 11.0 77.0 5.5 4.0 70.0 9.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 9.5 9.5 '11.0 el Oth,°/c,ileTerrri Cod Max Coord',,%..MaXirt Mak:, CoOrd.- Max 'Max c-1 Max Max Queue Length 50th (it) 112 725 0 56 -1'i 46 4 39 23 10 -164 23 -217 dileCte1{fibth05th(ft) #176 7;#933 i.,R #144:.#12827-x;. 56T. 34 #26f P, #406 internal Link Dist (ft) 762 75 802 1588 ircir ,.15,...c„ _„„2.4,, 4 CT kr ,c 1 Base Capacity (vph) 361 2263 1189 86 2063 1135 115 115 189 309 142 299 Staqation`CaP.Redtidtn .1 0 Tat. 0..t.'7'>' 0..-.. 0 O. a<.:A.::': J.0; .71:-., 0 i ilc,, 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stotage Cap Re 0. C:0 :f. 0 7 0 2..:: I l': If o1. .7} .s,::, i, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.95 6.01 0.83 120 0.24 0.44 0.27 0.15 1.14 0.23 1.17 ut. '77 Inter r Summarytz:r Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%) Referenced tolotiaSe,2:NBIL Natural Cycle: 120 ControlciTipTFACTuated=c6Fainated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.17 Interslaion.Signal:Delay:791"2T Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysisperiod:(mir9115,22a Liti 2- -A 2 2 :citlt:L, Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Lguweisho is maximum after 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may ,7 is maximurnafte&tyvOi S lits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd 7i.C7 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 4 02 t i; It 06 if 03 •=rts 04 12 s j 15 •sI7,,f, 1 10$' K83rsWititP -"Wtat-c.-2 A..". 1 07 08 76i€,,,v-„,v,a-ar,r_r_i4-4Art,--1-7.9ty.1,a-tiff;r1-6a9c.1- ig 17: .1'7'; irt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build-out Conditions 9/6/2006 _3 Lanearoupic,-...,,, tictEBT-S.EB13 IWBRRNE31;2---NBLktiNBR'SELOSER;(,SER2 70th•%ileTerrn. Code Max- ‘Max-. Coord "Max f 'Max: Max Coord Coord Max- Max Max Max 50th %He Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 50th,%ile Terr Max Max Coord Max Max Max COord Max ,"7;' Max' Max" Max 20th %iie Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.6 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 30th:%ile Terrn Max Max Coord Mai( Max Coorcl_ COord-i„: Max Max::, Max Max 10th %He Green (s) 11.0 77.0 5.5 4.0 70.0 9.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 9.5 9.5 '11.0 el Oth,°/c,ileTerrri Cod Max Coord',,%..MaXirt Mak:, CoOrd.- Max 'Max c-1 Max Max Queue Length 50th (it) 112 725 0 56 -1'i 46 4 39 23 10 -164 23 -217 dileCte1{fibth05th(ft) #176 7;#933 i.,R #144:.#12827-x;. 56T. 34 #26f P, #406 internal Link Dist (ft) 762 75 802 1588 ircir ,.15,...c„ _„„2.4,, 4 CT kr ,c 1 Base Capacity (vph) 361 2263 1189 86 2063 1135 115 115 189 309 142 299 Staqation`CaP.Redtidtn .1 0 Tat. 0..t.'7'>' 0..-.. 0 O. a<.:A.::': J.0; .71:-., 0 i ilc,, 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stotage Cap Re 0. C:0 :f. 0 7 0 2..:: I l': If o1. .7} .s,::, i, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.95 6.01 0.83 120 0.24 0.44 0.27 0.15 1.14 0.23 1.17 ut. '77 Inter r Summarytz:r Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%) Referenced tolotiaSe,2:NBIL Natural Cycle: 120 ControlciTipTFACTuated=c6Fainated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.17 Interslaion.Signal:Delay:791"2T Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysisperiod:(mir9115,22a Liti 2- -A 2 2 :citlt:L, Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Lguweisho is maximum after 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may ,7 is maximurnafte&tyvOi S lits and Phases: 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd 7i.C7 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions LaneGrdup., Lane Configurations Ideal Ftow (vphpl)` Turning Speed (mph) Lane U tit: =Factor Frt Flt Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted' Satd. Flow (perm) HeadwayFadtor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance'(ft) Travel Time (s) V kne (vph) Peak Hour Factor Adj: !!Flow_ (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign-Control. „EBL EB9? *.WBT� t tt 1900 ,1900 1900' 15 '1,00 1.00 0.95 Intersection Summary= Area Type Other„ Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utili ation 82 2 °/q Analysis Period (min) 15 vv nSEL SER r 1900_ -1900: 1900 9 15 9 1.00 1 00 0.850 0.865 1CU Level of =Service E i Scenario A 9/6/2006 0. 0 1565 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build-out Conditions 9/6/2006 3 I* C 4- vc- 4 1 \-1 larie GrouPTC,,k:&KTth;:,.Lftl‘El3L Lane Configurations II ft+ 'i tt r V hlepl,FioW (vptipl) i 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900: 1 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 LeadingDStO± :7.. 50' -50 50 f.?:' ,50,' -/.50?:2:4' „SOT: Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turf-ILI (5 15::r 9 15 i 915 15± 7, 97: 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 Frt:'"?: -:-.7 0998 0,850:- Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.963 Sthidl'EloW.:(16(6 17191 I3431 i':'1-1 1719; 3438101638"`ST:c 0 0 Fit Permitted 0.078 0.104 0.963 Said. F. (Perm)4,:':°: 141 1861:a3438iff.':1538`,Lii t 071699 1%7L;:i' Or'i-', t'l; 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes S'atd.„Flovv (RTOR)I -2:: ..,.,2 8f,:- Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 iiiiicsTeea7(Efihi) :ZTf.,77: Link Distance (ft) 259 1619 995 417 Travel Tinfe1017-i711 l'' TT t 9.5 Volume (vph) 576 1871 30 23 1763 454 26 27 15 0 0 Peak Hour Factor., Z,T.71,0.95 _10:957' „0:95 -TOW:70195:1,'0.95.-: 0.95. 0.95T}..- Adj. Flow (vph) 606 1969 32 24 1856 478 27 28 16 0 0 hang,G roup now. (v0):::::: 606. .2001 _2 71, 7,-.1 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Free Prot p rotraied-,Phasesr' "4, 7±- :4 .4.t.::.?.{.c'4 t. 1 .8 5s1,--,,:e Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Detector phases g ,y:475(a" 2:17,:-.1.7.1,Vii Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MinimurrippliU(s) i a io:o=i... 100L .;;T 0:0 Total Split (s) 29.0 80.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 rSpraTspi it. (%)77: -7,- 32889Wr-0 .0P/6-,56.7%.,7567 1-1%1'11 .1% :0 io;f Maximum Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 yellow Tiniel(g):: 40 40 -7, 4 4.0€2,747077:17 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag ..5 Lead i- .Lagif HI Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Veliicle7E)<16111iion (s) Tr 30' ::3.0 3i0- v?,g: 7 a.M:7 3 0;:ki 7c,:: Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Eff&-Greeri(s)::„., T: L 76.07,76.0a". 470:-':„•47.01 .90.0'..-::-::::Th 60 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.52 0.52 1.00 0 07 Silaytatio :17 1 09 0 024 .1,03,-. 031 057' Control Delay 76.6 3.0 8.5 37.8 0.4 53.9 Queue Delay y' 1950 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 Total Delay 271.6 11.1 8.5 37.8 0.4 53.9 Approach Delay APOroaCh 90th %ile Green (s) 900 %ile.Term Code. 709 %ile Green (s) 71.6 29.9 53.9 C 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 Max Cobra' Coord• cOord- Max- Max 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 6 V i m2 04 10'Si_ 8011?-f r- r.�a._I 4 05 3 07 a m8 104 I. 29!s;:." wI'=.. tt51.3:_ _e..,. .1 ti ..1,.. l 14 v,-. 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 SEL_ArSER LaneiGroup T.frosi EBL 70th %ile Term Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 23.0 5087 %ile Term'Code Max 30th %i Green (s) 23.0 308i %ile Term Code Max( 10th' %Ile Green (s) 23.0 10th %ile Term Code Ma5rs Queue Length 50th (ft) -349 Queue Length 95th (11),M#350; Internal Link Dist (ft) l urn Bay Length (ft)' s Base Capacity (vph) 557 Starvation Cap Reductn 1162 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn ,Th. Reduced v/c Ratio fits and Phases: PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EB,T' i EBR WBBSWBT WBR NBL2 Coord Coord Coord Max 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 Coord- Coord»Coord Max 74.0 45.0 45.0 Coord= Coord Coord5 74.0 45.0 45.0 Coord' Coord-Coord, 132 2 -619 m130: m4 m #708 179 1539 2899 8737 0 1.53 0.99 0.241.03 0.31 4\ Intersection Summary ,t Area Type: Other CyCIelength 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 31 (34 Referenced to pha 4 EBTL -and 8 W BTL Start otGreen Natural Cycle: 110 ContF fi Type Actuated Coordinated ,,L=,`, Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09 Intersection Signal 51.8 Ihtersectiori;LOS; D Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis'Period_(min)15 r;s. F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. :.Queue shown;is maximum two cycles 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue sh'ownls maximum after two cycles m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd P NBLNBR Max; 4.0 Max 4.0 Max Max 4.0 4.0 Max 33 o 0.57 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions J Lane;Group Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vOh01) I 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector; (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning,SiSeed(iirpti) Lane Util. Factor EBL EBTaEBRTAWBLIL tt r 1909•:.:41900.- 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 50; 50 50' 0 0 7 ,15 15 1.06 0.95 1.00 1.00 .4 -W,BriSWBRIANK Nar tt 1900.. 1900* 19007 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 0 153 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Scenario A 9/6/2006 TNBRth.SBL;;;SBTIsqSBR 4 r 19001 1900 /1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50' 50 0 0 0 9 15 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satth-Flow_(OrotL:. 7:0A343,8 1,„5 1719 3438,4', OT -,;;;-o .6 1.:- o Cir-i 0: 1538 Flt Permitted 0.091 0.950 Satd Flovv (Pirrn):... ,1"..:4 ,0C-1,3:43871538J7155c. 3,438gI.Fli0;\14:. 0„:0 .;.,0 0 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes SaId7F16;C(RTOR) 7 ,74 :r1-72,T ,i; '4 t;‘.10 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link4Speedcriiphr 86,7 Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 346 ITra■Yel:Tfnieteitn.7,7-T --.5475 Volume (vph) 0 1661 738 414 2183 ---Th 0 0 0 0 388 0 406 Piabl i';' 0.95 Fr 0:95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1748 777 436 2298 0 0 0 0 408 0 427 traiie GrOu 0:41748 J77 436 _22987"-z ofF-rfio7S.,..01 J.. 0:.;;;7408-i-- Turn Type Free pm+pt Prot Perm Pretected P.hasest :A ..--T,',2. 1 7: -i 16; is1 Permitted Phases Free 4- 8 6 DetectorphaSeS i,," 4,- 47 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Min inITyTti: spi it (!)i wif 100 L,4 o.oe'D o.67,71,i„ t --7:4,: 1: 7: 1 o.o.7:71604 Total Split (s) 0.0 44.0 0.0 21.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 Co 0.0 25.0 '25.0 25.0 Ticial 0.0?/;748.9% 00%.2373%:: 722°/07::00 26()%2- 0.6 6.0%7270 Maximum Green (s) 38.0 1376 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Yellow Tim ‘.....„7 1,v,.; :OTT :7. ..j: r7 4.0'.;:', t T Y: 4: All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 216 IL ...I. '.4. CeierT-,,....177..:I',77,L,;,-.-:.-Li:„,..:,,,t,,,,,L Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes )roidii 3.0 1 3.0 .;3.0:, t -:-:_n•' ..-..71' 7 Y.: 7 31077: no f 30 RecallMode C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min Aat'EffCt Green s 2 y5,40.0_ 90.0714'610 61.0-';' s r ,,,:j t 21.0 10 2 21 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.23 C/aR c r` 0.51 1.08 0199 i. 1.02 V.16 Control Delay 99.0 1.2 79.2 23.7 85.7 132.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0 .0 0.0 23.1 0 0 59 "..7 Total Delay 99.0 1.2 79.2 46.9 85.7 192.0 Los: t 7 F. A E CY- 7 H F Approach Delay 68.9 52.0 140.1 APPrOaCh Los. D F 90th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 90th %ile Term Cede. COord, Max Coord Hold' 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 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions f kaneiGraiipaaatAEBLE QUeue Lendth ni#99,:rn#8457 Internal (ft) 753 540 Turri,BpYlLength Base C apacity 1538 405 2330 'Spillbackeap Reductn ".221.EJ0-27--r...l'..k'ci:"-±- 105 StarVatigritaWReductri`.1 0 161 StoraacaTIReauZtrP•t 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio s 1 1.06 Scenario A 9/6/2006 IEBR TP YV,BReaNBEI:1 Max Coord 38.0 15.0 59 0 ;,1\IBTANBRSBEr SIBiTIASBR HoId 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 70th %He Term Code Coord 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term Code Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 38.0 30th %ile Term Cade Coord 16th %ile Green (s) 38.0 10th icypirejein Cade ST: Coord' Max Coord :Max: Max Queue Length 50th (ft) -61 -227 420 -240 -288 Max Coord 15.0 59.0 Max Coord. 15.0 59.0 66 407 401 367 0 1.02 -;090 IntersectiohiSurnmarY Area Type: Other PY.PK191 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offisetp. 86: (09%),:ReferealcedSphase:4:EBTraffit Natural Cycle: 110 ControgypeffActiatedTboordina -224;;L-k,-;,. Maximum vie Ratio: 1.1 IntersectionSignalaelaya7S:1 -',:lnterSaction 'Los: FT-17_71=7.7,77:77, Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis:Peribdi(rniF) ,15.Y7t=77 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Que after twO,Cycles'::;:12.3;..s 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. FraireileTahavVrr is nieginTui*after.twecyblesiTY- c'lk7= m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp \s ol 25 Varr.T 06 25 o3 —0 04 4r o8 65inn;.: •:ti&E:‘ kg Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 0 4 4 12atte hs.:,.e:r.:ESTFLZ,..:AEBRix„,.V.V,BLp4VB11 rsciNBLL,NBEZ.,nrizatiat Lane Configurations tt tt Vi r Ideal Flo' ii(vPlpl)..' 1960, .1900,..,1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading DeteCtot (ft) 7; 50 50' 50' Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed'. (mph) 9 15 15 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd: Flow(prOt) 3438 Satd. FloWlpernlY ::-.„:0b„L: 343(c., 1538.;',..; ,..1 r. ifi .1 9 3438 3335 7 1538 v-T:::, 7 ,ii-. Flt Permitted 0.950 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satck:Flow.'WPR)-,' 7 cliE, .i. ...:::::47 '10 L7 3: Headway Factor 1.00 :or 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ainkSpeed ph) 4 7 ,45 1, CC I•: Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 Tryel Time (s);,2)4:,; .tt 9:4?;;;-, t.ri Volume (vph) 2049 0 0 1789 808 429 peali ret 9:95::,% 9:95 .975777095 .95 iilo5. Adj. glow (vph) 2157 0 0 1883 851 452 If TGT gif 07' 7 Turn Type Perm PrOleCted'Phe§erc:1727,:it' '18 iffIc 07,171 5:: y -77 r-r.'72 Permitted Phases 2 DefebtOr.Rtilsei.::::-.77.7-1 %.":"..tf:1.0:' S'.! 7 t-?71,.7`, Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 M i ii Ir i I( s )1Z1- -1: ',71 0:0 0:0 ''.:-.1ciaiiiky 1 o:crj.:Hlt.: Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 iTOtaI '77 r Li i. ":71 Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 YellOWTIFFIS) --4107-77.---Crt7:?.4'.07c;7174.0.-.344.0.. -,-;A 7::- ITITT'7: :717 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag 1 7 77-----: 7:"'-- 7 :11 'TT': 7 ..c: if_11:7T 1Y. In 4r Lead-Lag Optimize? VehiiCle:Eite61161 3 0 ',1 I:370 1113.0i(C3:07 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Green (s) 57.0' r: 1 .57 Y25. 25.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.99 086 0.92 1.04 Control Delay 15.4 3.6 48.0 87.7 Queue Delay 15.0- E.: 7 2.6, 0.0 15.1 Total Delay 30.4 6.1 48.0 102.8 LOS C A D F Approach Delay 30.4 6.1 67.0 ApOrOach LOS C A E 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 906 %He Tel* Code Coca Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 10 4. 02 II" o4 29" IM Gifill C r=" 71 4 -7f.f e i lr t:r= ..:ff- 1.- 1 "2!1' 4- 09 617s14aiThfac trztV,"4"iirralle t-n a 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 C 41— 4 IcantGretipttaTitidEBI3MWTBI2:.it.WBT§..aNBL-4 70t1i Terrri Coord Coofdt.. Max -Max SOth %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 50th %ile Term :Code 000rd Coord Max: Max 30th %Ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 30th %ile'TerFri: Code Coord 4e CoOrd Max,:'- Max 10th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 10th %ilecieniMCOde::Coord- Coord' Max- Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 186 20 241 -277 Queue Lenith Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Base Capacity (vph) 2177 2177 926 434 t:::.0iit,.. Spillback Cap Reductn 105 37 0 17 StOiage,t?P'Re'dtict 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.95 0.92 1.08 S lits and Phases: 17: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario A 9/6/2006 IntersectioniSummary..- Area Type: Other r? Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offiete3033%), ReferericedI'nfO'Phiale,'. Natural Cycle: 90 COMFOI TTOFActu Sr; 2 7777 7; 7 7 -7 7 7 -7. 777 .77 -1 771.7 :Thr Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 IrifeliTeCtieniSignaltlelay:_30-t:Scst5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysisferiodi(min):151LAL Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. I Queue shbwriximum two 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Faweb& f m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Lane!,GroliptiaAti Ef312 W:tdit.1 Lane Configurations Ideal Flo* (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading DetbOter.(ft)7. Trailing Detector (ft) TCtrning,Speed (mph)c. Lane Util. Factor Fit Protected 1 vi) tt ttt r ,1900 1900 --.1900 .1_900. 1900. 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 56; 50 50. 50 50 6000 0.950 0.9 50 1:t Y5L 9 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Scenario A 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 02 7 04 37ll'- la:: ..7. C. VIC .S0ig.rryteillf la 53i ...'th''''''._.-att.51....s._'C'ST#-;:t,...)1;;,-/-sz-rtl.riate.ri-nos �B 37 ittn-t1- zr:L" ite 19's= Mif!' a 34 'Ili 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 70thmkile Terrn Code 50th %ile Green (s) 50th %ire Term Code' 30th %ile Green (s) 30tit Toile Term C ode 10th %ile Green (s) 10th %ile.Terrn COde; Queue Length 50th (ft) QUeue:Length'9 5tK (ft)\, Internal Link Dist (ft) Tuft Bay Lengttt(ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Caa:Repubtrt Spillback Cap Reductn StorigipipT Reduced v/c Ratio 0 4' Area Type: Other jTeje7L666Tvr._ :7777 77 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 gff- 2F EL91P, rig gill 'itt e r: i' I' M l7 4. Natural Cycle: 80 Conta Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 IntersectioniSigrialDeleT33.4! 77 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service D AiTabisii At 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. r..:‘ Cue Lie shown ia!rtiaidEiTrir'aft -7 C -7 -7 7 1 171 17 7 -7 717--771 47 7 Y:7 5 7 77— 777. PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Max :Holds Coorft. Coard;_c 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 Max HOld.i. CoOrc1 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 Max Hold! COOrd:. CobrdE, 12.8 47.0 31.0 31.0 Gap 125 0 189 337 #193 =r #455:i 1367 1599 556 1104 1223 1261 0 0 0 0 0.79 0.53 0.69 0.90 S lits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 $,WT&I,SYTRICs4 lax .Max 28.0 28.0 Max 28.0 28.0 ..:Max Max 28.2 28.2 Max Max: 319 0 #426 747 1649 594 lc? 0 0 0.96 0.20 Scenario A 9/6/2006 Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions S atd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 Satd. Flow (perm) 1,1eicivqy FaCtOr± Link Speed (mph) Linli4DiStante PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 1 4/ Scenario A 9/6/2006 LaneiGroup7=t3.0---EBILEIEIRCNELSZNETaiSYViTiaSYYR,Acmt Lane Configurations r 14 tn.+ Ideal Flow-(vphpli 1900, 1900 1900 190(;ft 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lan Util. Factor 100. 100 1.06 095 0.91 0.91 1; Frt 0.865 0.987 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 tr.607:_ T.00 30 45 45 13597 2 1679 1" Travel Time (s) 30.9 36.5 25.4 071886,10 835 1176 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'Adj. Flow"(vph) 0 374 0 1985 r185 '-f-C Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 374 0 1985 2117 Sign Controll7;.-- IntersectiomSum m a%t. -.-i, t- .,21.„.: AreaAY Otfik: .5. t. W-. 17 E-7` C:2' Control Type: Unsignalized Iriter Cap abity!Util (zap on:68 i0% 0„- Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 0 liane.GroupfiaaractiEBK(. Lane Configurations ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50i Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed:(Mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 t ,,f13.11 t t r r 1960 1900 1900.? 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 Th, 50 50 .50' 50 o 0 0 0 0 9' 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.950 Sa (pifOt) 17.191 -,1181f2:5387151719:7".‘„: 15387j7,-;::: Flt Permitted 0".650 Satdiiflow.(perm)c- -:-.1810*.18101 r-.717191538117. Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd7F_IOW(RIOR) it 1,s1s;i:W Headway Factor 1.65 1.65 1:001 )156 1.00 1.00 Eirik.SPe i:.- -45 7.:-.,450' Link Distance (ft) 1174 1862 1638 TFErellTitiTais)f .r..T.:4 2,-:..'t,178 1 1 ',282 '^1,-): l- r 312 Volume (vph) 465 222 605 189 65 699 Peak HourfactOri 0:.95 -7 70.955 Adj. Flow (vph) 489 234 637 199 68 736 rai 21 :4LiDL -7i,ila?2d5x83,r g1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm ProtectettEPhases'.-.1 6 _8!. ,E1,..i ff.: r i: Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 Detectb1Phasesi37,47 :::::Lc:' 4 '1 6 rTicic. 8f.:1'•-: Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum 0 i 0 ',I. 10.0- Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 iTotalS i 51 Yo751":1 TO48.9%740.9%:`51.1%:51:1%;,:c Maximum Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 YelloW-Time (s);- -1 '4;0 ,.74 PT' 4:07r 4 .6 1,170 Tn. All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -:;'t 441 1:_27..,12.: Lead-Lag Optimize? VehieyeTEXiensii5F(S) Th. '2: 30 3.0.: 310 3.07f.; 370- 7-: Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act Effct Green (s);.,. 41.0 ,r41.0 41 4113 41 cir. 41 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 "yic yOtio Y 2- 0.59 1 0 9,77 7 0.22: 0.00 p:p::: Control Delay 8.0 3.4 28B 3.1 13.6 34.8 queue belay 0.0 0.0 I. ob p.o: 00 op-, Total Delay 8.0 3.4 28.8 3.1 13.6 34.8 LOS A A:1 C A; Approach Delay 6.5 22.7 33.0 ApOloacti,LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 9001-%ile Term Code Hold Hold: Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane °Grou 70th %ile Term Code 50th %Ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term.Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile.Terrntode 10th %ile Green (s) 10th- %ileTerm +Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue "Length•95th (ft), Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft), Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap FZeductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Redubth.R Reduced v/c Ratio IntersectiemSummary ifµ Area Type: Other CyclelengtF 90';' T r Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset:,80(89 Referenced to;phase'6:WBT;= Start`of_Gteen Natural Cycle: 70 Control;Type Actuated Coordinated;? Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal ,.Delay: 21 2: L Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% Analysis Period 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. EQueue shown is maximum'after -two cycles m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Phase conflict between lane groups Splits and Phases: =EBL EBT.'WBT?,WBRt" Hold Hold Coord; Coord' 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 Hold t. Hold. Coord Coord= 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 Hold Hold; Coord' Coord 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 Gap Gap; Coord, Coord 207 33 309 0 m296 R. m46: #4546 1094 1782 0.57 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4-- t 4 S SWL' 4SW,R Maz Maz 41.2 41.2 Max Max 40.4 40.4 Gap 33.3 33.3 Hold t, Hold':. 20 296 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.08 0.91 Scenario B 9/6/2006 851 851 831 814 808 811 Page 2 1 04 ma 4 4 as 44sr'•f M'eN- 1`••Y'J 46s t—C4c.".4d .tea mY°A 1: r'? 5°`,_`.Sirr3l ".-(?k 1 Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build -out Conditions Lane °Grou 70th %ile Term Code 50th %Ile Green (s) 50th %ile Term.Code 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile.Terrntode 10th %ile Green (s) 10th- %ileTerm +Code Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue "Length•95th (ft), Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft), Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap FZeductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Redubth.R Reduced v/c Ratio IntersectiemSummary ifµ Area Type: Other CyclelengtF 90';' T r Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset:,80(89 Referenced to;phase'6:WBT;= Start`of_Gteen Natural Cycle: 70 Control;Type Actuated Coordinated;? Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal ,.Delay: 21 2: L Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% Analysis Period 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. EQueue shown is maximum'after -two cycles m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Phase conflict between lane groups Splits and Phases: =EBL EBT.'WBT?,WBRt" Hold Hold Coord; Coord' 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 Hold t. Hold. Coord Coord= 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 Hold Hold; Coord' Coord 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 Gap Gap; Coord, Coord 207 33 309 0 m296 R. m46: #4546 1094 1782 0.57 5: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 4-- t 4 S SWL' 4SW,R Maz Maz 41.2 41.2 Max Max 40.4 40.4 Gap 33.3 33.3 Hold t, Hold':. 20 296 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.08 0.91 Scenario B 9/6/2006 851 851 831 814 808 811 Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 3 Scenario B 9/6/2006 52--i-aEBLys-AIEBTAEBR4. ,B124XV,V,135aVVB_R BF.ft Lane Group; Lane Configurations VI 1' t 1 tt r ii vi iri r r Ideal FloW'(\iphOl) 1900. 1900 .1900 1900:. 19D0 1900 -.1900 1 1900 1900 1900 1900::: 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LeadingDatTeCthr MY: 50 50 r- 50 t-.;• 50 50". 50;2 59:. 50. 50 50:: 50::::k 50 Trailing Cieiector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TGF61ng.prepdArnphy 15 i 9' y15,:;;;I: 9::-. 15 15 9 :.157:;„( .9 Lane llfil. Factor 0.97 0.95 1' .06 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt-:.:. 0.850 0.850 0.850T; j. 7 08500850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sald:Flo).7v1(iirdt) i.:- i. 3335 343871538 -1719: 1538C 3335; 1538 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sitd.,FloW (reirri),1: 34313'l'i1 538 1719 1 3438 4 :4;1538.f4.1719.'a f 1719:-;4,1538;,, 3335 153871538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes SW,F16 .1:17C- r.il-Tr r r 77g.1196. 4 .7' ii5, 1. 1 2-7 Z I: Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 T. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 Link,speed7(mprot.4-t-...-1-± t145%-'i;.‘' ..'"'lifij;': 7 :545 -0- 4 C.-.,S,' T. r c r--30=7-' .2", 'T. '.is 30 :7,' Link Distance (ft) 842 63 882 16 TiiCi Cil- 1.;. Volume (vph) 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 e7 20 25 282 21 291 P FlotO"'F5 0:95,70.95: i0.95.L 0.95.. 09577'1 .T.23.95 tk '.;0.95.;,:, 0.93S-0.957 0:9 Adj. Row (vph) 208 1937 96 129 2415 101 60 21 26 297 22 306 LanthGroup ';',:f; -96.t. =:2.129:12415. 1- ;;7201 21: 366 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Ord" Over Proigotia .Pfirig§',"; 77 7; '..f", 7-7 7 3 -2 7:7778-, fa 67.1 77 2 .7.,A :.-,T37-?... 6ailzr:c. 4 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 DeteCtor:Phgses'il:' 7 c,-.;,- 717 c t:- 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 410 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 74710M:..:1 -10:V.:JO;10.07:L OTT 10:0: r. :;10:0:i10MiZ1 60 ....-100 Total Split (s) 13.0 57.0 11.0 10.0 54.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 160 12.0 12.0 13.0 iTotaIIIS r::1. °/07,--1 13%, 13:3°/0"„ 14. Maximum Green (s) 7.0 5176 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 YelloWTiFile(S)7_-_ i 1 :1: 4M 74.0,17:7 .6 c4 .::,.„4-.0.;:::.1,=.4.0 [1,4 41 ,0 ,0. All:Red Time (s) 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 'in 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead Lag i Ti, egad Lag 7:: Lead' c.....:77k z c Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yehicle'Extension (s)' ,:30.- 7 362737: 0‘303.6 -3.92" 3 30 l... '3 .o ,7 7 3.07 7 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None Act Effct Greert(s): -7 9.0 53.0), 60-500 58.0‘ 70 7,0 .13.0: 8.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.59 0.71 0.07 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 y/c Ratio 7 t 0.62: 0.98 1 0.09 17.12 1'.26'- 0.19:: -0.45 0.16 0.11 '''1.00 0:16 .1.07 Control Delay 47.7 30.6 1.1 109.3 .8 41.7 16.6 96.2 41.0 95. Ctie0eDelay 0.0 2.6 60 oo 00 00 2.6 op 00 00 66 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 '1' D 17 A .F t i, F F. D D B -z F. r 16 F Approach Delay 30.9 126.5 40.7 94.0 fipfro6ch LOS 'C' 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.Terni Code Max Max' Coord Max Max Max Cobj 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 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 3 S co2 >J o6 0 03 o 4 of 12riiii----2,.,,E 1 Ivi i orett...„ 57th KLIM'K''f-iftli"A" 471 I o7 08 1 i r-Pa; lc, :4; 54rtiZtia:46CV,Ltfag-irle:STUOrrartr-EatIt. Pt.Sa I:: A .r j Rutherford Crossing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 LeneiGroupfffltS .-...1-.--,EBL51,,%1EBTSEBR41yYBMWBT 70th %ile Terrri Code." Max Max CoOrd: 1 -Mak;;: Max CciabeCOord -2: Max Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 50th %Ile Term Code Max Mak Max, Max MavCeof Coord Max Max Max Max 30th Toile 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 30th Toile Term Code Max Max COei'd Max- MaxT„- Max -COordc- Cdord Max Max Max Max 10th %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 110th:Toile-Terrn Code Mak,, Coord Mai7Coofd7Cobrd Max .7. Max Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 503 0 -88 -923 0 33 11 5 -89 12 -113 Queue Length 95tit(ft). f-' 12- 73,:,,,r:=. 34'',--<,.r 23: #172 t: 35 #275 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 Terh S7 :p'„-fl 7 iT7 1 Base Capacity (vph) 334 2025 1121 115 1910 1061 134 134 232 296 137 286 Starvatior 0 '12 't0.f ,0i...k uc0 s 4 0 '2: 0 0: 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 StOfage Cap. ffeductn :s.;• 0L r ':t0t.f 0 7;12. 0 I, i 0 04, :::9.. Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.96 0.09 1.12 1.26 0.19 0.45 0.16 0.11 1.00 0.16 1.07 IntersectiomSummarylei4tit.... ..r.tWent:01-1: t Area Type: Other Cy cle Length: 90 i --;.1 Vo' :e..7:1., r 7 t ka.;-..":";::: 3 t'' CT e'iu 4 r,..77' :B d):" Actuated Cycle Length: 90 ,Offirr: 0 -7,77 Natural Cycle: 120 7 -7'47 CcTitial:TTO AdtuatedLCS 4 F 3 77 7,1 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.26 InlersettiErnTSignalcala83.97rE1; LOS: 7 71:,.. .--rs .s. Intersection Capacity otilizaTion 63.8% ICU Level of Service F ArialcaiiPeritiTd 7::. 4 t7-i in ri =.14: Ax,f,} Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. FiCilleireilio cyclesr "c; 7. ;E: 77,7L 7:1 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. S lits and Phases: AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions S Lane'Groupt n EBL EBT'""�,WBT V.BRM&SEL+ SER L'' Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl).; 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 Larie Oil :factor 1.00. Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (Prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factory Link Speed (mph) LinkDistance(ft)r Travel Time (s) VoWme(vph)2 Peak Hour Factor AdrFlow (vph) s Lane Group Flow (vph) Sign`Control;" Intersection Summary; 1r 0 4- Area'Type w Othel f Control Type: Unsignalized Infergectibri Capacity Utilizatiom62.6 t. Analysis Period (min) 15 f TT r 1900 .1900 1900: 1900 1900 9 1'.00;." 0.95 ;1.00 0.850 15 9 .1:00 1,00'+ 0.865 0 1565 J Level of Service.B Scenario B 9/6/2006 1810 3438 1538 1810 3438 1538 1.00; 1 00 1 00 4 45 45 1174 rav 2.5 17.8 1076 =Y 1903 67 0.95 0.95 0.95 1133-- 2003, 71'T 1133 2003 71 39 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 Approach Delay 19.0 7.8 34.7 A ED'S. Bi A C 90th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max loth %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 6 1 o 2 Ix 111- o 4 1471ZS I C.*. 76 re7i 2;;;Sat:5220,Waamgia:15CW4W6ff .1 77g,i,-..3 r'" vl 4 05 a 14 ,Lrt-71.17 ..4• L41%174 a= I 7brzk.:-. 59 W-4'W.ette inrinlaW: lc, 7 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: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates iv f 4- vc_ iffiFierOrouPgl'era'AivrittEBL77,-t WBRW2-,E.5„NBLIMNBF.t'i--11SELsit'SER§:48/4 70thAile Term Code Max: Coord Coord Coord Max 50th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 50th%ile-TerM Code:-:' Max Coord Coord' Coord f.':-." Holds- Max: 1-- 30th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 30th %ile Term:Code Max CO:oli:d Coord Coord __...i Max 10th %Ile Green (s) 13.5 72.5 53.0 510 5.5 5.5 toth %ile;Terfn'COde. Max 06bid. i Coord Coord /.......P::-;Galo f:. 'GaV"-: Queue Length 50th (ft) -216 69 0 498 0 24 Quebe-,L6r7gth 95th (ft) frat265:: -:-.1M50::' c 1 611* 622 :',rii0.1-,.:47 6244: Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Tiiiii;BaYteriali (ft):- :i..%;:T: (2.‘,:::' 7 n -i 'i Base Capacity (vph) 339 2767 111 2101 1538 191 Stal :5; 475-•-',' :ter,--: o .:i..,1c .c.7.6:- -..o--10, ,_-_-i.1,7±. i y, Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 25 0 0 Stotage;Cap Reductn„--..-::--,: igi-L-4, Reduced v/c Ratio 1.12 0.86 0.05 0.83 0.28 0.31 Intersection1SummaryVt444,4 44ta4:44 Area Type: Other ,Cycle=Lengffv.:49044 e, -44,r4 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offir31 kaferrn IFP)Thie. 4: EBTErahld 7:76:: Natural Cycle: 80 Control 77:44_ 44= 47;44 ri Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10 IntersectionSignal Delay 13 9 IntereegtiongOS:1331 =}44r A.4.5'449, Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Arialysis,E'eriod(rnirp Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. f4 slicitilifia•maxinn :1 Cr: f: 7 3 t 777 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. -315:erielelhi )kiiiiiTriaiiinWrilaffel two' cycles m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 14andi Group z .i.....et .4...e.„th VVBRVlb Lane Configurations tt r I tt Idial.Flow (Cipliply. 1900.: 1 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 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50- 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 TursiingSPeeziE(mph) c. 15 9 15 4. i. 9:1.- Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 I.00 1.00 Scenario B 9/6/2006 WA,S13111USIVIASI3R 4 r 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 0 0 0 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Approach belay 46.5 47.1 ApProach LOS b' 90th %Ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 9 %Ile Term Code Deere.' Max Coord 70th Toile 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 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 4 4 fraWe.,76ititr 831±-, EBTOAEBR,W,BL 70th %ile Term :Code 4 v n= :-.-Coord -4 -Max 504,%ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 50tliyoile-T.e(MTCOdef": „J" Max 30tii %He Green (s) 36.0 10.0 30th;')/ ile'TerM .!'4 Coord,;„::- Max 10th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 :10115;%ileTerni:COeYSY. Odrd7:47'44,:::-.' Max Queue Length 50th (ft) -523 0 -188 Q1:e7,e'L'ergth: 700,M#307 Internal Link Dist (ft) TO Base Capacity (vph) 1452 1538 309 StaWatiiinteRedEibtriVW,INZACARr010@ Spillba&Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Et Reduced v/c Ratio 1.08 0.45 1.12 Interse Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ramp AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates VaVV13,TAVV,B „RaENBL-St NBT SBE.2. SBT Ho Id Max Max 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Hold Max Max 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Coor 4 HoId Max Mx 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 41; Max 350 222 -557 #79 ;:z:47 #776 540 407 266 2063 535 485 0 0 0 1.02 0.80 1.46 Scenario B 9/6/2006 „Asti Area Type: Other Cycle-Ifehgth9oiv-77:_,„ ttc,17e497::', Actuated Cycle Length: 90 OffsEi36700gogkeferineidIldWare74IE8t and 8VBTIF8laiTTOCCreare'n Natural Cycle: 90 CihtioliTy7e7Actgafgel4Coordinitedr: nkrWr-;`,V-,ar;j:44'711).-74"- Maximum v/c Ratio: 1746 In,tersectilOinASignaEDelaX70;677:?.:€ -4 .1nreisittion'LOS!'f- Intersection 'Capacity Utilization Th1.8% ICU Level ore'ervice G 4Wr:.:1P 4' ":77:71WITfilt Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. alq., 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may b;longer. Queue shown imaximuni after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. No• 321 06 32% wan c 03 01 1 1 04 16's 17. ;Arai 417, 08 5 "7 4T" k Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions L Lane Configurations Ideal•Flow (vphpl):= Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector(ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turing Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor F.rt% Flt Protected Satdt Flow(pr'ot Fit Permitted Said Flow(perm Right Turn on Red Satd ,Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) TravelTime (s)'` Volume (vph) Peak'Hour Factoo? Adj. Flow (vph) Lane Gr 7 (vj Turn Type P rotected phase Permitted Phases Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) Minim Split (s)= Total Split (s) TotaI Split y Maximum Green (s) Yellow°Time,(07 All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag_ Lead -Lag Optimize? U eh i cl a =E xte n s i o n j( s Recall Mode Act Effct Green'(s) Actuated g/C Ratio 4/c Ratio e: Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS=- 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %ile TermiCode 70th %ile Green (s) AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates -0 1 NBL NBR BT EBRt tt 9001:&19 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0. 11.6 12.7 12.7 51.0 Coord 51.0 tt 900'< 1900 1900 'r 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50`, 0 0 0.63 0.28 0.28 081 0.67 0.78:` 4.3 30.4 35.9 0:0 0: 0:0 4.3 30.4 35.9 4.3 32.4 51.0 27.0 27.0 Coord Max; Max 51.0 27.0 27.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 0.0 57.0 33.0 33.0 076 63 3%15,167 4 7 36 %a 51.0 x 27.0 27.0 Page 10 I N' t 02 m4 33'W '.:W °..r_"t11.,: 57:emss V'F v 4- o8 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 Lane Group.:4 EBT E 1 VYBL,_,WB NBL 'NBR 70th %ile Term, Code -Coord Coord Max Mazy' 50th %Ile Green (s) 52.3 52.3 25.7 25.7 50th' %ile Term C ode Coord Coord Gap Gap' 30th %ile Green (s) 56.7 56.7 21.3 21.3 30th %le Term Code; Coord Coord Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 62.1 62.1 15.9 15.9 10th %il Term Code Coord Coord ;Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 17 155 167 Queue •Length 95th (ft)` m161 80 206 2.262z Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2163 2 163 1075 502 Starvation Cap Reductn 2 Spillback Cap Reductn 50 Storage:Cap'Reductn 411p,,, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 IntersectionSumma Area Type: Other Cycle 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 0.82 0.58 0.68 Offset::30 (33 %);.Referenced to phase.4:EBT and!8:WBT. Start ci Gre Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type ,Actuated- Coordinated' Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection' Signal; Delay:; 13.6. Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period ..(min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Intersection LOS: Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions raneiSroup Lane Configurations IdealfloW Total Lost Time (s) LeadingpeleEtOr (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) TUMing,Speed (mph). Lane Util. Factor 0 1 4/ 4 L']Ag..:NaTa r 'Pm tt ttt r 19 0 Q -1902:;, 1900 1900'.7- 1900 4. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 600. 50 50 50 50 !.1* 0 0 0 0 0 0 9- 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Approach Delay ApprOachLOS 90th %ile Green (s) 90th %Ile Term Code 70th %ile Green (s) AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates *A 22.7 52.1 24.2 7.0 26.0 26.0 Max i: CoOrd Chard 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Coord Max -Max Hold 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Page 12 02 7 04 kir 58:11..g5±;-.1+;?-,11. r. 05 _0 07 08 32:e42;t 4 e.„....7.4i.:C2 ffrusa..; ::::.;frLea I r 7:7;M; 1 3 rs rrZ,4,:iV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions LaneiGroup? 'EBLEBRS1 70th %iletTeeMCOdet Max Coord 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 50th %ilejerrn code. .'MaX-.COordf: 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 30th %ire Tei Code: rvtax Co�rd 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 27.1 10thyoiliTerM COde Max. Coord.7: Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 Oierie j7sr Internal Link Dist (ft) 1165 Base Capacity(vph) 334 1538 1646 1078 2250 922 Staryation„CapiRkducta,.:.. Seebeck Cap Recivatn 0 0 Stoi OaPTRduCtn 0,:tt Or:- '01,,77.: 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.21 1.04 0.83 0.84 0.17 Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 90 OffSet:,8CY(89%);Referenbed:to:Ohase12 Natural Cycle: 75 Control,Type: ActuatedCbOrdinatedE Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Sigrial,Delay:36.1" IntersectioitLOS:, D -1st Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue;Shownmaximom after two oYcles,-Jr,,i 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. I ,...Queue maximum:after two:cycles.i m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 NEL- SW,Tag,SV,V Coord Coord Max- Max HoId 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Coord?. Coord Max Max, Hold 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Coord Coord Max Max 27.1 27.1 37.9 7.0 50.9 Coord Coord Gap c.: Max SHokr. -338 251 354 32 #469 #320m417 m48 1599 747 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Lane Groupiw EBIfogEBR AEL'a NET..”ISW.t ttP Lane Configurations r tt +ft+ Ideal Flovv (vphpI): 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util Factor 1.00 .41.00 r ;1.00 0.95. 0.91- 0.91' Frt 0.865 0.984 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Intel ],efratr:' 7 Control Type: Unsignalized .K7JCU of Service Q Analysis Period (min) 15 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions 4/ Scenario B 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 L'aneiGroUpitahltrEBLImEE3TC‘V,V8TalWE3RASVYLITSWARiSc, 70th %He Term Code', Max Max Hold Held: 50th %ile Green (s) 53.5 53.5 245 24.5 53.5 53.5 50th %ile Term Code Max Max. COord;Coordt:. Hold. Hold 30th %ile Green (s) 56.9 56.9 21.1 21.1 56.9 56.9 30th Aile Term Code' MaX Max Coord .:Coord Hold Hold_ 10th %ile Green (s) 61.6 61.6 16.4 16.4 61.6 61.6 10th Terrri'Code:: Max: Max Cborcl:::,,CborclY: HoId HoId Queue Length 50th (ft) 604 420 221 27 51 126 quedd:Cehgthr95th 1 279c 59 113 341 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1114 1782 1558 Turnpay base Capacity (vph) 1106 1106 804 72'1 1051 1063 Starvation Cao' Red uctri.: :;:t 0 6 Spillback Cap Redu cin 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage CapFtediiptn:tir 0 To 3Th 0 Y1':■?;? Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.21 0.68 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates —Ow Scenario B 9/6/2006 ati“ 'cra- IntersectiornSunithary_ Tokaiitl Area Type: Other Cycle Length Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Cffset: J89%): of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actiiated-Coardinated7L1,,:gL Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88 InterseptioniiSignal Delay:26,57; Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Periodl(min) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue ShowntiS,maxiturnjafter cycles.i m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 17 conflictibetweerilane grodPs..i 117 r Arr Page 2 I" 04 46 rsTrattl. it*. S-1-171Z-ti: wistejA I o 06 44 s Intz." litt48 al 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 L'aneiGroUpitahltrEBLImEE3TC‘V,V8TalWE3RASVYLITSWARiSc, 70th %He Term Code', Max Max Hold Held: 50th %ile Green (s) 53.5 53.5 245 24.5 53.5 53.5 50th %ile Term Code Max Max. COord;Coordt:. Hold. Hold 30th %ile Green (s) 56.9 56.9 21.1 21.1 56.9 56.9 30th Aile Term Code' MaX Max Coord .:Coord Hold Hold_ 10th %ile Green (s) 61.6 61.6 16.4 16.4 61.6 61.6 10th Terrri'Code:: Max: Max Cborcl:::,,CborclY: HoId HoId Queue Length 50th (ft) 604 420 221 27 51 126 quedd:Cehgthr95th 1 279c 59 113 341 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1114 1782 1558 Turnpay base Capacity (vph) 1106 1106 804 72'1 1051 1063 Starvation Cao' Red uctri.: :;:t 0 6 Spillback Cap Redu cin 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage CapFtediiptn:tir 0 To 3Th 0 Y1':■?;? Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.21 0.68 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates —Ow Scenario B 9/6/2006 ati“ 'cra- IntersectiornSunithary_ Tokaiitl Area Type: Other Cycle Length Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Cffset: J89%): of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actiiated-Coardinated7L1,,:gL Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88 InterseptioniiSignal Delay:26,57; Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Periodl(min) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue ShowntiS,maxiturnjafter cycles.i m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 17 conflictibetweerilane grodPs..i 117 r Arr Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions -I:- I* lk_ 4 1 1 tane., Lane Configurations Vi tt r 1 1 tt P )7firti r Idea1Floliv' (VOhp,I)-' 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Y190011 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 Leadin (ft) 50. 1, 50.71 50 50. '.5-i.50 56:- 50 50 50. 50 50 i, Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ttirning:Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 15 9 -;.:_9':: :t 15 9 9 Lane bur Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flt 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd: Flow (plot) 33353438 1538r1719k3438-1538•,'1719:. '1719° 1538' 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd::Fiowl(perm)- .l. .,p,..?5L:34381:4538,..@',07193 343§1:;15381:0,7182 -.";14:719-.'14 1538A335;,715_88i51:1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sairt. '.:17 c 93 is t .,25aS-, f.:71:;- -;i 1 1 1 6 ---gli .-7.: r:::-. 152 Headway Factor 1.00 176b 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1.66 1.60 1.00 1.66 r=7,:457±0-::W-,r'`114*,7-T:''-1;30-k•70.1.7 S: 7730 7, 7" 2:7 7775 r;77 Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 Travel Tithe (s)ifrIr I ThIcCiTh, 123.. :Lilo' k ,,..1 r 12.64-7i 20.0rsz-i Th. ';..f.37.9772, 71',2“ J Volume (vph) 271 2073 88 67 2370 255 48 29 28 333 30 333 Friak 7,T7-15T95,..::, 0.95 957; 0 7 09 5;,-_ O. 957 01 5 7 0.957': 0.957 Adj. Flow (vph) 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 Lane Grotip;Flow.(Vph) T285 -2182 93A, E:::71-,2495::.? 4 268;414: :.51”:3,773731 k 32 35 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over protected F)haSeiT :,,7,1777 358 7 :;T67 1::: 2‘;---• Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 DetectOr_ L::.3.•,:i 6r,'. 2 T, Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 '4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MiniMurn;Split (sr -1 '•.-.,t10.0 ;100' •10.07710.0f070-..:' ...‘-.:100:-.,;: 10.07'10.0:J.4.011 i.10.07 Total Split (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 Total;Sple(%)i ,47,7c 14.4(Y,A68:3%;712.2cYr1%760.00%'71313% „12:2%2%71,1T1 1%;113%713T3%T1 4:4% 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 YelloW_Time (s) :Al 147 0=.' c‘ 470 4s 7 54:0 7 4:04677 -4:0 410. 4 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ireial/Lag7, i 7 Lead r!..- L'agi 7.77r-cLeld ,tag .J. 7 7, CeiCfc;r7' 1i Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vetilale ExtarTsicin.(s) ‘8.0 30.".„ 30 ..1. -3.0 JC 3.0 IC 3.0.7 3.0 -7,:i.3.07.7:3.071. T. 37017 3 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None ACTEffa:Gree 90 580f 7.01: 7.0 :i.8.0? 80 90 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.61 0.73 0.07 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 we iIatio T 055 7 .04:7 0.087; 0.62 1.31 0 25 0.381 ]0.23 1 023: 121 'control belay 64.4 50.3 1.1 51.9 156.7 0.2 48.1 43.5 20.5 150.3 42.7 143.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0' 00- 00 00 o.o 0.0 00 0.0 -0f.01 00 0.0 Total Delay 64.4 50.3 1.1 51.9 156.7 0.2 48.1 43.5 20.5 150.3 42.7 143.2 LOS E .•P' A D t F A PI, p. :e7,-.. y F 15.,, s. Approach Delay 50.1 139.3 39.6 142.2 Approach LOS D- 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 %ill Terrn:Code• Max Maiii'Coord:, Max Max Max coordr.:Coorc1it;= Max Max: Max Max 70th Toile 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 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 3 m2 06 i m3 v► o4 11:1 12atj° 10's"'1 57;'s irj al:x m7 08 1'3`S I$J' 54i €eifff :.Sti fr'Ys.?. CSht.:; 1 ?ef 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 Lar eiGroup 70th %ile Term Code" 50th %Ile Green (s) 50th %ie Term Code' 30th %ile Green (s) 30th %ile Term Code_ 10th %le Green (s) 10th %ile Term Code 'z Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue` Length 95th.(ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) (Turn Bay Length,(ft) Base Capacity (vph) 334 Starvation Cap Reductn, Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap_Redubtn e Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 Intersection =Sum mart': Splits and Phases: S PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates EBLh .,ERISEBR Max Max Coord 7.0 51.0 5.0 Max Max Coord 7.0 51.0 5.0 Max J, Max Coord 7.0 61.0 5.0 Max Max; Coord. 83 -735 0 #153 #873', 12 762 1.04 0.08 Area Type: Other Cycle Length..90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset`. 0. (0 %);,'Referenced to ph Natural Cycle: 120 C ontrohType :`Actuated=Coordinated T =.Tt Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31 Infer`aedtion Signal Delay :10 3 y Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% Analysis Period (min) 15, 8: Route 11 Welltown Rd =WL W, BBf "<WBR NBL2 s,1NB4 Max Max> ;-Maz Coord: Coord. 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Max Max', Coord ".Coord 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Coord'-Coord 0.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Skip Max Max. Coord,. Coord 42 -967 2 28 17 m40 m #89.1 m1 65 "•`45' 753 802 0.62 1,31 0.25 Intersection LOS: F ICU Level of Service F Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue showh is maximtitafter two cycles 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. t Queue shown: is maximum after two cycles ta. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 0.23 Scenario B 9/6/2006 NBR SEL`SER :SER2 Max Max Maxj'; _Mai 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Max:. Max Max' .Max 4.0 6 0 6.0 7.0 Max Max Al, Max Max 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Skip Max'_iMaz Maz 9 -124 17 -162 28 #211, 46 #333 1588 0.13 1.19 0.23 ase 2 :NBL; Startrof Green;: L] w_r Page 4 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions 3 I ah6IGroup r v{ ttlitaSt- ESTryAST AVV,,BRe SELL =SER, Lane Configurations tar r Ideal Flow.(vphpl)r 1900 1900:1= 1900 1900 1900* Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 LaneUtil Factor, 1.00 1.00;; 095. It :1 00 1.00 1 00 Frt Flt Protected' Satd. Flow (prot) Flt•Permdted Satd. Flow (perm) Headway Factory Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft)'_ Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 1810 3438 1538 1.00;: 100 100 -100 u 1 :00 45 45 35 145 1194 1`1 ti 2.2 18.1 22.1 1601^'1591 61 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0, 0.850 0.865 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Adjt FIow,(vph) 07a-158591675 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1685 1675 64 Sfo' r S trol Free, Free x p Intersection Summary Area Type a :Ottie4- Control Type: Unsignalized T� r te Intersection Capacity,, Utilizationf87,6 r h Analysis Period (min) 15 Scenario B 9/6/2006 0 1565 U:Level of,Service °E PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 Lane„kGroup,WL-Ad-`sc,IW_EBtEVAEBTSAEBRTg,W,,BLAVV,BTayVBRkjNBL2r .NBL:- NBREstsISEL ..,SER Lane Configurations "j ft* tt r W Ideal (vglip1) 1900' 1900: 1900 ..1900 -1900 1900 -1900 ..1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LeadingpetectoL(ft) 50;:' 50, 50 50i 50' 50'. 50'. Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Sieed(m130), -15: 9 15 9;7,15" .15 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 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 6 1 m2 V- o4 10 "t 00 s :.t m5 m7 i 08 10' l'; D 21 s;e..: l' 59 '.b� 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 Intersection ;Sum ma 3 Cane;Group EBL EBT,- 70th %Ile Term Code Max` Coord 50th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 50th' %ile Term.Code Max, Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74. 30th %ile TermiQodet ,..,Max Coord:: 10th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 10th %oile Term Code Max Coord''' Queue Length 50th (ft) -444 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) in#411 m11;1' Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductri- Spillback Cap Reductn Storage.Cap Reductn "0_ Reduced v/c Ratio 1.66 Area Type: Other Cycle 'Length: 907 re Actuated Cycle Length: 90 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 405 2899 Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 Redbud Rd EBRAW,Blk WBit BR NBL2;'; NBL NBR!, SEr4gsER ,s '-Coord Coord'. Max Max 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 Coord 'Coord'-'- 53.0 53.0 Coord, Coord' 53.0 53.0 COorck Coord 11 628 m17 m #691 1539 0 103 2101 1538 Max 4.0 Max 4.0 Max Max 33 915 124 Offset: 31 (34%) `Referenced to phasd4 EBT.L and 8 :WBTL Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.50 Intersection Signal Delay: 54,3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% Analysis,Period (min) 5" s 4 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown•is Maximum after two cycles ys a r 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue •showh'is maximum;aft c ertwo ycles 1 m m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 4 I P y i I ritersection =:COS:; ICU Level of Service F Max 4.0 Max' 4.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 7 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Maximum Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 Yellow Time (s) :4.0 4 0 4:0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates q All -Red Time (s) Leah /Lag Ca9a- Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0' 3 0 3:0 Recall Mode C -Max None C -Max Act Effct'Green (s) T 46.0; 90.0,' 61i.0 61.6",I.. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 1.00 0.68 0.68 v /c Ratio 117:" 0.51` "121' Control Delay 102.7 0.1 127.9 35.9 Queue Delay 0.0'' 0:0' 0.0 '20.8° Total Delay 102.7 0.1 127.9 56.6 LOS F A F E Approach Delay 71.7 68.7 Approach LOS E. Er 90th Toile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 90th %Dili Term:Code Coord Max C dortl 70th Toile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 LanelGroup x, EBL -DEBT EB WBL WBT4�WB NBL: NBT ONBR$ SBL; iSB r ,SBR Lane Configurations +T r +T 4 r Ideal Flow,(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900' _1900 190 -1900 '-1900 '1900' 1900. :1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector.(ft) 50 50 a` 50 -:50 50: 50: 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turnirig Speed .15 9` Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 9.- Flt Protected 0._950 Satd Flow,(prot) 0 ,3438 1538 1719,°.3_ Flt Permitted 0.091 Satd Flow (perm) 0 3438. 1538. '165 3438 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said. Flow-(RTOR) 3? Headway Factor 100 1.00 Link speedi(mph) 45 Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 Travel Times E 9 5 Volume (vph) 0 1703 738 465 2286 00 z 0 0 423 0 406 Peak- Hour,Factor., a 0 ".95_- .0.95'' 0 95 0 95. c. .0195? 95 ?0 95 0'95 0:95 0 95 95 !.06 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1793 777 489 2406 0 0 0 0 445 0 427 Lane Group Flow;( vph) C 0 1793 77 489!7'2406'..2 0 Turn Type Free pm +pt Protected Phases' Permitted Phases Detector Phases`: 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum'SpIit (s) r... 10 C 10:0 10 0 10 Q. ,.10.0 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 Total,Spld 7,. it?, ,'0 :0% 48:9 %70:0 %'.23:3 %72'.2% 0 0 0.0 .60°/07' 0.0% 27.8 %..27.8% 27:89A1 19.0 19.0 19.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.950 X1719: 1538 0.950 <,1719k =1538 Yes t45 4 7 Perm 0 Min Min 2 0.23 0.23 1.1 1 4 1.17 112.6 134.8 0.0' 00 112.6 134.8 F F 123.5 F 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold: Mak Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Page 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions aOtti %ile Green (s) 38.0 30th Termtode: Coord 10th %Ile Green (s) 38.0 i 10lliyaile T TeFrMCcidec.4 '1" •Coord=i: Queue Length 50th (ft) -638 Queue CengK95tli. (ft) .;.,,--rr#581, Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 Thin Ba7L6rigth ft B ase Capacity (vph) 1528 1 Starvation 45 Redueln=LL,e'f;;, Spillback Cap Reductn 0 8tiiia L'r: 0-n 2 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 C) Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ram PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 15.0 59.0 Max Coord: 15.0 59.0 ,Max 'Coord 0 -294 -775 rn 0 rfi#337- 540 407 266 Scenario B 9/6/2006 I k- t P \z• i• LanekGroup>140 ..,EBLIVERTISAVY,BT VVBR ',,SBIr..4 70th °/c Tertn Coord- COord21z Hold Max Max 50th %He Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 50th %ileTerm. Code Coord Max ,f;-. Hold .Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max' Max -292 -290 #.4475 2330 401 'li 4 '1 1:16 538 4...05 92 17-7;9fft..:hN ji; Tr-7 T7 177:7:r; --V't 7 m 0 0 0 0 rn ti 77.-7 2, I f; 77 -z 91 „„-t 1.11 1.17 ttir tt, 0 IntersectiomSuthrtiary, ;44 at:. "4.2 3tql-itat. Area Type: Other PUde Length:SC Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offga kgfereited 4:EBTandq3:WBTa-4Starfof Green c. Natural Cycle: 120 Control7Type:, C tia Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.21 Ihterse :.ett 4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G r Analysis period:(miri)•1 7z "'F 11:1 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. aueue: shown iirdaxiingiii:aftr. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. tit is,Th cyblig?'; -j m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 9 03 I° m4 25;S:;',..1.-7,re“_;01'7T: f 44V ro6 Ai- 1 08 25Y- rftnci..rii-i 47 ak:11-1.: lig 65 S Ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions aOtti %ile Green (s) 38.0 30th Termtode: Coord 10th %Ile Green (s) 38.0 i 10lliyaile T TeFrMCcidec.4 '1" •Coord=i: Queue Length 50th (ft) -638 Queue CengK95tli. (ft) .;.,,--rr#581, Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 Thin Ba7L6rigth ft B ase Capacity (vph) 1528 1 Starvation 45 Redueln=LL,e'f;;, Spillback Cap Reductn 0 8tiiia L'r: 0-n 2 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 C) Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 SB ram PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates 15.0 59.0 Max Coord: 15.0 59.0 ,Max 'Coord 0 -294 -775 rn 0 rfi#337- 540 407 266 Scenario B 9/6/2006 I k- t P \z• i• LanekGroup>140 ..,EBLIVERTISAVY,BT VVBR ',,SBIr..4 70th °/c Tertn Coord- COord21z Hold Max Max 50th %He Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 50th %ileTerm. Code Coord Max ,f;-. Hold .Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max Max 19.0 19.0 19.0 Hold Max' Max -292 -290 #.4475 2330 401 'li 4 '1 1:16 538 4...05 92 17-7;9fft..:hN ji; Tr-7 T7 177:7:r; --V't 7 m 0 0 0 0 rn ti 77.-7 2, I f; 77 -z 91 „„-t 1.11 1.17 ttir tt, 0 IntersectiomSuthrtiary, ;44 at:. "4.2 3tql-itat. Area Type: Other PUde Length:SC Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offga kgfereited 4:EBTandq3:WBTa-4Starfof Green c. Natural Cycle: 120 Control7Type:, C tia Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.21 Ihterse :.ett 4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G r Analysis period:(miri)•1 7z "'F 11:1 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. aueue: shown iirdaxiingiii:aftr. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. tit is,Th cyblig?'; -j m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 9 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions C 4 fi LW GI EBT ,„"EBR. 4wBL W BITS NBL zNBR E Lane Configurations +1' Ideal Flow (vphpl)' 1900. 1900 1900, Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector(ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turriing Speed (rnph) Lane Util. Factor Fit Protected Satd,Flow (prot)'? Fit Permitted Satd -Flow (perm),= Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR)',- Headway Factor Link Speed(mph) Link Distance (ft) 620 Travel Time (s) >r Volume (vph) 2125 Peak'H5I3 Factor =J Adj. Flow (vph) 2237 Lane Group Flow.(vphY Turn Type Protected Phases.=- Permitted Phases Detector Phases''.: Minimum Initial (s) 0 1942 808 449 259 672 Mini umSplit;(s). Total Split (s) 60.0 0.0 Lotal-Spli x 66:7 Maximum Green (s) 54.0 Yellow (s)? ;:4'.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? VehicleExtension (s) Recall Mode C -Max AcfEffctGreen(s) 56.0,. Actuated g/C Ratio v /c�Ftatio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 90th %ile Green (s) 54.0 90th %ile Coord 70th %ile Green (s) 54.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.62 1105 34.8 43.3 78.1 E- 78.1 E. PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Tt 1900 19001-1900E 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50[ 0 0 0 `15t 9. 0.95 0.97 1.00 .0.850 0.950 3438" 3335 1538? 0.950 3438 3335' 1538 0 0 2044 851 473 0 j rt851 473w Perm 0.0 60.0 30.0 30.0 ,0 0 %.66.7 33.3 33 3 54.0 24.0 24.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.4 0.0. 8.4 A 8.4 A 54.0 Coord` 54.0 Yes C -Max Min Min 58.01 26`0 26 0 0.62 0.29 029 Q.96 J 7 0788 1.05 43.0 89.3 0.0, 0.0_ 43.0 89.3 D- F 596 24.0 24.0 Mai Max" 24.0 24.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 10 41 s 02 I' 04 30 w'a'rn:` -fri,i aa w'" .l 61: $7.-.1 y_?°` =.s f.: a Rr .,..'v'',.. .rI .15 4 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 L^anaGroup iEBT EBR ANYBL WBTorie'aj;NBEibra 70th %ile Term'Code' Coord '.;_Coord Max Max. 50th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 50th %ile Term' Code Coord: ‘Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 30th'__ %ile Term,Code Coord' Coord. Max Max r",. 10th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 10th%ile Term Code, Coord' Coord ;Max', Max Queue Length 50th (ft) -257 30 237 -294 Queue Length,95th (ft) m125 m 58 #343 #484;, Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Langi f Base Capacity (vph) 2139 Starvation Cap Reductn";.,' Spillback Cap Reductn 190 Storage: Cap:Retluctn Reduced v/c Ratio 1.15 Irltersection Sun1ma Area Type: Cycle Length'+90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 30 (33 %;WReferenced,to' phase 4:EBT?and :8:WBT, Start of Gree n Natural Cycle: 110 Control;Type: Actuated- Coordinate Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection:SignalDelay: 48.3 efsection L_OSTD Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis P,eriod'(rr in) 15 xw,' Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. r shown; is, m axi m um, after tw c 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer .Queue shown. is rnaximum after two cycles,, m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Other Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 4 4 2139 0.96 0.88 1.05 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Scenario B 9/6/2006 Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions Lane,Groupg-,A Lane Configurations t r Ideal FloyVuThOlr:111 ::.1900",' 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 Trailing De lector (ft) 0 0 0 Turning Spead 15 9 5 Lane LA. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 Frt 0850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd.',Flaw:(prot)I ,1= 538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 SaldFlovv(perm)::5'L333A.1453n3_3_3_5; Right Turn on Red Yes Satd Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ilni_i_Speed (mph) :L 90th %Ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 90th %ile Teirri‘pijide'!, 1 ,,Mak. 176101- Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Scenario B 9/6/2006 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 12 o2 7 o4 37147i ,Tirrif :n Ef 53 s.'n,,'Ir-jK4:7A.:/NA:ert'rtthrlf:-;tVsiP.AaCi-S.M 1 le 08 1 05 _If 07 37,i`,.. :4 ii:Za--4-,Q...:',-!rilt:l'irt; SG': C S 19'iraTiT,C .-7.:1 2 34reattlIt-Macr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions LanelGroupciAvAnt,elai 70th'Toile Term Coder 50th Toile Green (s) 50thm/oile Term Code': 1 4/ Max..7-11-61d Coord' Max Max 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Max ;.Hold "Cooed Max Max I, 30th %He Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 30th TleriTiTc Max !ty Holdr,CpOrcli: gourd: Max 16th %He Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 10th _Toilejerrac606 Max 7 itilaCdoFca Coord Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 161 0 209 284 289 QuetieLefidth95t1 (ft) ^7#268 #441 .1 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1359 1599 747 TurFFBaSqerah4t$ :,...7t•--- -J Base Capacity (vph) 556 1170 1223 1261 1647 Starvation Reductn2t, Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 StOl Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 Route 11 Scenario B 9/6/2006 EBLIOEBRTAINEL-TatIETiRSVVilaSWR-t_ 28.0 28.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 13 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build-out Conditions lianroupow -$41-C NET_ SVV:WaSW,Rias1 Lane Configurations r tt ilk Ideal FloVv (qihPI):::' .1900 1900' 1900 1900- ,1900. 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1%00 1.0V 1.00 095: 0.91--' 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.987 Satd. Flow (prof) 01565 0 3438 4876 0 ..,E".414cra,trrani Scenario B 9/6/2006 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 HgadwayFactot iod ibTib Link Speed 36 45 45 pritirftF1:1 7:: 1287,77115 T 2411 72,7 16791 c Travel Time (s) 3073 36.5 25.4 yoricrho:(0Tin17-- /077:A417r 07 983;72 039 1977.TiT_ Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj: Flow (vph) s464 r-7077i208721a16;* Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 464 0 2087 2353 0 SigftCsintrolVW:73:' SEPT T Ti IntersectitiniStirtmary 1 7 Control Type: Unsignalized InferbectiontaghcitylUtilization.:77:8%': Kr CU:avel.ofLServiCe Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust Associates Page 14 I Intersection: E -W: ROUTE I I Weather Dry File Input Name N -S: I -81 NB RAMP Count By 11P B0:1 11P Location WTNCHESTER.VA Count Dale 6'14/2006 1 15 Minute Period Begining EB: Left ROUTE 11 Thru Right Total WB: Left ROUTE 11 Thru Right Total NB: Left 1 -81NB RAMP Thru Right Total SB: Left Thru Right Total N.S. E W 15 Min. Period Begining 1 7:00 0 51 0 51 0 101 0 101 123 0 9 132 0 0 0 0 284 7:00 7:15 0 68 0 68 0 123 0 123 97 0 20 117 0 0 0 0 308 7:15 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 0 286 845 A.M. Total 1 0 481 0 481 0 858 0 858 924 0 134 1058 0 0 0 0 I 2397 I A.M. To:al 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 1630 16:45 0 126 0 126 0 118 0 118 175 0 42 217 0 0 0 0 461 16:45 17:00 0 120 0 120 0 104 0 104 175 0 33 208 0 0 0 0 432 17:00 17:15 0 153 0 153 0 107 0 107 161 0 42 203 0 0 0 0 463 17:15 17:30 0 109 0 109 0 124 0 124 180 0 35 215 0 0 0 0 448 17:30 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 I I WE: ROUTE 11 NB: 1 -81NR RAMP SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thro Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 1 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 I7 :00 0 486 0 486 0 439 0 439 663 0 138 801 0 0 0 0 1726 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 1 1 WB: ROUTE I I NB: 1 -81NB RAMP SB: 1 (lour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right To Left Thru Right Total Left lhru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 13 W Begining 7:00 0 271 0 271 0 434 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 PHF 0.88 PHF 0.92 PHF 0.93 PFIF 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 Namel N -S: 1 -81 SB RAMP Count By J1P By JJP Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date 6/6/2006 1 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: SB: 1 -81 SB RAMP 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Lett 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 7:45 0 0 174 127 301 38 367 0 405 0 0 0 0 3 0 135 138 844 7:30 1 8:00 0 201 233 133 149 334 382 24 20 365 354 0 0 389 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 131 149 133 153 856 909 7:45 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 8:45 0 154 134 288 40 211 0 251 0 0 0 0 2 0 96 98 637 8:45 A.N. Total 0 1512 1030 2542 225 2164 0 2389 0 0 0 0 22 0 985 1007 1 5938 II 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 II P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: SB: 1 -81 SB RAMP I Ilour Period N.S. Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 1 7:00 0 782 504 1286 119 1139 0 1258 0 0 0 0 11 0 538 549 3093 7:00 7:15 0 807 541 1348 115 1298 0 1413 0 0 0 0 13 0 553 566 3327 7:15 7 :30 0 783 538 1321 108 1356 0 1464 0 0 0 0 11 0 531 542 3327 7:30 7:45 0 777 525 1302 90 1179 0 1269 0 0 0 0 11 0 482 493 3064 7:45 &00 0 730 526 1256 106 1025 0 1131 0 0 0 0 11 0 447 458 2845 8:00 16:00 0 922 577 1499 126 1378 0 1504 0 0 0 0 10 0 356 366 3369 16:00 16:15 0 955 607 1562 131 1356 0 1487 0 0 0 0 13 0 334 347 3396 16:15 16:30 0 988 681 1669 120 1227 0 1347 0 0 0 0 13 0 294 307 3323 16:30 16:45 0 942 691 1633 113 1137 0 1250 0 0 0 0 10 0 285 295 3178 16:45 17:00 0 883 661 1544 115 1057 0 1172 0 0 0 0 II 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 13cgining 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 A.M. Peak PHF 0.88 PHF 0.87 P11F PHI: 0.92 0.92 A.M. Peak 16:15 0 955 607 1562 131 1356 0 1487 0 0 0 0 13 0 334 347 3396 16:15 P.M. Peak PHF 0.85 PHF 0.90 PIIF PHF 0.79 0.98 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: CHARLESTOWN PK Weather Dry File Input Name) N -S: ROUTE 11 Count By JP By JJP Location CLEAR BROOK,VA Count Date 6/1/2006 15 Minute EB: W13: CHARLESTOWN 1'K NO: ROUTE 11 S13: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Bcgining Lcti 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 1 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 26 0 0 1 1 33 27 0 0 60 45 14 15 74 60 1 3 85 70 0 0 86 73 193 160 7:45 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 43 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 0 0 0 0 275 0 20 295 0 432 102 534 15 618 0 633 1462 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 0 0 0 0 1 183 0 29 212 0 957 246 1203 1 28 572 0 600 20151 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 813: ROUTE 11 1 Hour Period N,S. Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 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 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 118 0 10 128 0 193 52 245 6 288 0 294 667 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 121 0 12 133 0 201 52 253 7 302 0 309 695 8:00 16:00 0 0 0 0 96 0 19 115 0 474 134 608 11 292 0 303 1026 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 81 0 16 97 0 465 136 601 14 306 0 320 1018 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 93 0 17 110 0 452 139 591 14 312 0 326 1027 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 90 0 14 104 0 464 130 594 14 285 0 299 997 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 87 0 10 97 0 483 112 595 17 280 0 297 989 17:00 1 Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Lcft Thru Right Total I. ft 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 PI-IF 0.66 PlIF 0.90 PIIF 0.83 0.81 A.M. Peak 16:30 0 0 0 0 93 0 17 110 0 452 139 591 14 312 0 326 1027 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF PHF 0.81 PHF 0.95 PHF 0.92 0.94 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Input Name N -S: REDBUD Count By DP By 11P Location WINCHESTER.VA Count Date 6/15/2006 1 5 Minute E13: ROUTE 1 1 WI3: ROUTE I I NB: REDBUD SB: 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left 'Ilrru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right "Focal Left 'Huu Right Total E W Begining 7:00 77 0 I 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 19 0 0 0 0 100 8:15 8:30 58 0 6 64 4 0 17 21 8 4 4 16 0 0 0 0 101 8:30 8:45 52 0 8 60 5 0 17 22 10 5 5 20 0 0 0 0 102 8:45 A.M. Total I 5 1 4 0 30 544 1 9 0 189 208 58 30 30 1 1 8 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 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 17:15 133 0 6 139 5 0 12 17 7 5 4 16 0 0 0 0 172 17:15 17:30 107 0 5 112 5 0 9 14 5 5 3 13 0 0 0 0 139 17:30 17:45 83 0 5 88 3 0 10 13 4 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 110 17:45 P.M. Total 870 0 40 910 30 0 99 129 33 43 27 103 1 0 0 0 0 1142 P.M. Total I Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD SB: I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Len Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Bcgining 700 292 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 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 I1 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDI3UD SB: 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 Ilcgining 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 PHF 0.92 PHF 0.78 PHI' 0.89 A.M. Peak 16:45 474 0 25 499 19 0 50 69 21 22 12 55 0 0 0 0 623 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF 0.90 PHF 0.82 P11F 0.86 PHF 0.91 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection: E -W: ROUTE I I Weather DRY File Input Name N -S: ROUTE 839 Count By JP By 11P Location Winchester.VA Count Date 5/11/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 56: ROUTE661 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thm Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 33 259 16 308 21 304 44 369 13 4 4 21 56 4 54 114 812 7:00 7:15 34 271 I8 323 25 316 34 375 18 5 7 30 61 3 60 124 852 7:15 7:30 47 266 22 335 26 322 39 387 14 6 8 28 60 4 66 130 880 7:30 7:45 49 243 19 311 29 305 40 374 12 5 6 23 55 6 59 120 828 7:45 8:00 52 226 20 298 19 299 36 354 14 6 6 26 46 6 55 107 785 8'U0 8:15 46 189 16 251 14 259 37 310 15 5 4 24 41 8 45 94 679 8:15 8:30 40 144 12 196 17 235 34 286 20 7 3 30 47 9 46 102 614 8:30 8:45 42 159 13 214 12 212 31 255 14 6 4 24 52 11 40 103 596 8:45 A.M. Total 1 343 1757 136 2236 163 2252 295 2710 120 44 42 206 418 51 425 894 6046 A.M. Total 16:00 44 266 16 326 12 261 49 322 12 6 7 25 52 7 56 115 788 16:00 1 16:15 16:30 46 51 279 286 20 19 345 356 15 13 278 286 51 53 344 352 13 14 7 6 8 5 2S 25 66 70 7 4 65 74 138 148 855 881 16:15 16:30 16:45 60 294 16 370 15 298 50 363 10 7 8 25 70 6 76 152 910 16:45 17:00 66 307 17 390 12 289 56 357 11 9 7 27 68 8 59 135 909 17:00 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 426 2250 123 2799 105 2221 381 2707 76 50 59 185 451 42 473 966 6657 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE66I 1 Hour Period N.S. Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 1 7:00 7:15 163 182 1039 1006 75 79 1277 1267 101 99 1247 1242 157 149 1505 1490 57 58 20 22 25 27 102 107 232 222 17 19 239 240 488 481 3372 3345 7:00 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 1 16:30 16:45 241 240 1175 1160 66 59 1482 1459 55 53 1153 1137 207 194 1415 1384 42 32 29 27 29 31 100 90 259 228 23 21 263 238 545 487 3542 3420 16:30 16:45 17:00 225 1125 52 1402 50 1098 178 1326 27 24 31 82 193 18 202 413 3223 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E W Begining 7:00 163 1039 75 1277 101 1247 157 1505 57 20 25 102 232 17 239 488 3372 7:00 A.M. Peak PHI' 0.95 PHF 0.97 PIIF 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 PIIF 0.94 PIIF 0.94 0.98 P.M. Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1