HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199800020 Traffic Study Zoning Map Amendment 1998-05-12 Traffic Impact Study
Pantops Development
Phase I
Albemarle County, Virginia
Prepared for:
Virginia Land Company
Prepared by:
Wilbur Smith Associates
1110111111111111111111
\AEA
May 12, 1998
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS
IU LAtiI LRANKLIN 5IRLL I • RI( HM_>ND, VA 2321') 21 Uh • (Hi)4)hz1 r,o,I • I AX 0U4)644-2CC
May 12, 1998
Mr. Charles Hurt, Jr.
Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
SUBJECT: Phase I - Pantops Traffic Impact Study
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hurt:
We are pleased to present this traffic analysis of Phase I of the Pantops development in
Charlottesville, Virginia. This initial development is included in the Wilbur Smith Associates'
(WSA) traffic impact study for the full development of the Pantops development dated April 24,
1998. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the site in terms of projected traffic
conditions on the existing and proposed surrounding roadway network, and determine onsite
requirements.
Proposed Development
Figure 1 presents a map of the study area location and the surrounding roadway network. The
majority of the proposed Phase I Pantops development will utilize the Rolkin Court/U.S. Route
250 intersection. This unsignalized intersection presently serves the Amoco gas station and
convenience store to the south and the Montessori Community School to the north. It is assumed
that entering Amoco traffic from U.S. Route 250 will turn onto Rolkin Court and then make a U-
turn at the first median break to access the Amoco entrance.
With the proposed development, two new roads will be built. Rolkin Court (currently a cul de sac
serving Amoco) will be extended to connect to existing Hickman Road which fronts State Farm
Boulevard. A new road, Hansen Road, will have a curb cut at U.S. Route 250, extend to the
Kroger site, and dead-end ultimately south of Kroger. Rolkin Court will be median-separated
from U.S. Route 250 to the Kroger entrance with a curb cut for Amoco traffic.
The full-buildout phase I of Pantops is proposed to have a 9,000 square feet DMV, a 90,000
square feet Kroger supermarket and four outparcels (two fast-food restaurants and two retail uses
such as video rental stores). Attached Table 1 presents the land use and traffic projections based
on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Handbook, 6th edition. Full buildout
year of this phase is estimated to be 2002.
• AlELAP'), (1C • A[JAIII Ifvl • All iJll!„ .A. • IiAITIM(>RI, M1 •I'A(( '1(_'{' IIILNIA(1L) • (:A.I:ACA;; `v'I1(ll Elh•( II-J'll r1 `(
PI • (' )LUNi1fBU5 OII • ICI Pii( )IfNI t, IA • ALL, CHURCH, VA • II( ElL K('IH(, • II(11`fIC)(1 1) F1' 'All • Kt lc li!! !11
IC) • LONf)U N [f1(;l/\NU • (vlll WAHL',L[ WI • 1(1 W HAVEN, (.I • ()1)1^[JI)(_), I L • I'ITI:;1iUI)C H, I'A • f,Al I I( E1 it,..
!I • I;((`I I I I, It • ',AEI[RAll( I`;(: 2, ('A • 'AN J(-)`1[, CA • TAI LAHASS[E, IL • TAMPA, [I- • IC/RON IO, ('ANAI>A • ',VA`I ilf i(L I('r J, I)(
EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY
Mr. Charles Hurt
May 12, 1998
Page 2
Existing & Projected Background Traffic Volumes
WSA conducted turning movement counts during the morning and evening peak hours at the
Rolkin Court/U.S. Route 250 intersection, and at various intersections along State Farm
Boulevard between March 9 and March 12, 1998. Figure 2 summarizes these weekday peak
hour background traffic volumes. Actual count data can be found in Appendix A.
In order to project the existing local background traffic volumes in Figure 2 to the 2002 design
year, a three percent per year growth rate (compounded annually) was applied to the existing
1998 traffic volumes. This was based on historical average daily traffic volumes for the primary
roadway segment along Route 250 from Route 20 east of the Charlottesville county line to I-64
east of the Charlottesville county line. as shown in Table 2. This growth rate was applied to the
existing 1998 traffic volumes in Figure 2 and is shown in Figure 3.
•
Traffic Distribution
The percent distribution of Pantops, based on those in the WSA May 5, 1997 study, are evenly
split along U.S. Route 250. Appendix B illustrates the percent distribution of each parcel of site
traffic and Figure 4 shows the proposed 2002 Pantops site traffic.
Projected Combined Background and Site Traffic Volumes
Superimposing the projected site traffic volumes in Figure 4 onto the projected background
traffic volumes in Figure 3 produces the projected combined background and site traffic volumes
as shown in Figure 5.
Capacity Analysis
Highway capacity analyses were analyzed for projected background and background plus site
traffic volumes for projected 2002 traffic conditions based on the roadway geometries found in
Figure 6. These capacity analysis worksheets can also be found in Appendix C. The analysis
results in various grades of levels of service. Table 3 summarizes the levels of service definitions
and Table 4 shows the background and background plus site traffic intersection capacity analysis
results.
Overall intersection levels of service (LOS) of"C" or better are projected for all locations except
U.S. Route 250 and Hansen Road. The U.S. Route 250 westbound left-turn lane onto Hansen
Road is projected to operate at an "F" LOS in the PM peak hour. There currently exists a
separate left-turn lane to serve this projected movement of only 48 vehicles in the PM peak hour.
It can be argued that the actual LOS will not reach this level since the HCM capacity software
does not take into account vehicle platooning from the signalized U.S. Route 250 /U.S. Route 20
Mr.Charles Hurt
May 12, 1998
Page 3
intersection. Regardless, if excessive delay did occur on a regular basis, a portion of these left-
turning drivers no doubt simply would turn left at Rolkin Court, on the protected left-turn phase.
Roadway improvements incorporated in the capacity analysis will be needed at the following
intersections to accommodate projected Phase I of the Pantops traffic in 2002:
U.S. Route 250/Hansen Road
1. STOP sign control
2. Additional EB U.S. Route 250 Right-turn lane
3. NB Hansen Road Right-turn lane
U.S. Route 250/Rolkin Court
1. Signalization
2. Dual NB Rolkin Court Left-turn lanes
U.S. Route 250/State Farm Boulevard
1. Signalization(planned by others)
State Farm Boulevard/Hickman Road
1. Existing roadway geometrics are adequate
Conclusions
Improvements attributable to Phase I of the Pantops development include the development of
Hansen Road, traffic signalization and upgrading of the Rolkin Road intersection with Route 250,
and the internal circulation road network.
We trust this submittal addresses all roadway requirements necessary to proceed with this
important development.
Respectfully submitted,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Thomas E. Flynn, P.E.
Vice President
TEF/tns
Attachments
e.tetp/pankroup.doc
pantops/luoger update 331890
•
f\-CI. ';-.---).;;'' ••••-•..- ....lil
i5 S, 0
% . zplinnoz:ratinistp.h1711iley
Coonkfivial
.099 AC.
1!..9-41-- ....-.
-....".
\
/ •Ibb CO"44 •
A‘ voto,V0, lc\,),0
/
•,••
A 00003, +,
..0\I\ e,, •
‘ \
cfl st 13.
eit,acrot• '.\ . lk
V'sAcji6 Vt, ''' 1 ..,
' tiN
\ % /
"*.•:, .,\, ., 1.1., 00,,,'".::,, % /
• -'. ..
4: . 1 ,...........:1 \
s• .,\ it°41 :.4
•
. D
:::• .../..:
.. . ,
- ... ,
7,3
,.„
. -.,
,,LoposE.J0 -
0.•
..............„......,:„. 211 EA 0
1 -A ....
• . Ft
•
...
. '
'..... '............'..••••••••"• :.....•..1
.•...• ........ .
....
.•.•.•
:•:••.•:- ••
. ......*:.".•
AUNT SARAH1
PANCAXE MOUSE
i::::::::::.::: .;...........•..1..:•••......*:•'.........•...'.:::...........•...*/........•/.......•/....•..1....:• .. •:•:.;'.......''...** ...........................•... ....... ....• ......... K
.:::::.:::::::::: ................:::•:::......:... ...........:•....::.`•...........••••••••:::::... .... ........... .......................................•::...........
••••••••••••••••• •••..:..•:..:•..•••••..••:•••••..•:....•:••.... ......... .... • 5114 PS°5°°%°SI°
........./..:.::::::: :•••••••••11:••••.....•..............e........e...........•..../.............................
::.:::::::::.:.:.: .."•:::.:*"........••••••:::...../....../............................::1:•••••.•
::::::::::::::::::: ....:•••••:"............:::::::••....:::••::••••••:::***.".....•
•••••••••••••:.:.:.:.:. •••••••:Sil................:•:.::•••••••.
...............::::::::: .......k.........A.........*:.•••
---....
Astilisw Figure
Ma11111111111
1111E111M
isiur.ffor Phase I Pantops Site RI
ap
\AEA i
•
o
N
o0
�
0 23(2)
0 o v
`v `V 1434(878) 1508(874)
V 40(25) 238(63)
Rt 250 �1 i
541(1399)—PP'
25(16)j r 237(59)
657(1569)� I N
,,,
en
68(136)� �+M o
fV
M M
00
0
e
v ..
--- M_
00 r
Hickman Rd J 1
7(19) t
1 6(16)
C•1 00
I�
a)
LEGEND:
00-AM Peak Hour
(00)- PM Peak Hour
Source:WSA 3/9-3/I2/98 Counts
AMINE Figure
� 1998 Existing Background Traffic 2
•
0
O
rn
C 6 t 26(2)
N
M 1618 990
( ) 1701 (986)
p45(28) p 268(71)
Rt 250 1687(1025) �I i
610(1578)---►
846(1941) 28(18)
1 267(67)
741 (1770)-0-
r
77(153)- M .�
o v N
M M
M M
00
U
.5
0
00 �
00 en
00 N O
00 V
Hickman Rd �J 1
8(21) t 1 ?
7(18)
^ N
en
u,
LEGEND:
00-AM Peak Hour
(00)- PM Peak Flour
Source:WSA 3/9-3/12/98 Counts grown 3%per year.
AIM��� Figure
�Mill
2002 Projected Background Traffic 3
A
.0 o
o .a
1� a
�; o
o
o
144(263)
__ 147(305) .-45(99)
i—22(24)
v-24(48) Rt 250 120(215)
69(96) 51 (128) ---► 1 I.' 125(281)� 1 r
98(191) 69(96) _ ^I
M N Vl N_y �. _
�'� d r v N N
O 'b
CA
/ / E
N
F
M O- N f J
' ,-, i
N f"-•
N
/T Exist. Bank
L �51 (128) Li �- 67(72) Entrance
67(167) 4 ts f;,
v
21 (51)— -
LEGEND: Hickman Rd
00-AM Peak Hour
(00)- PM Peak Hour 43(75)--t
AINAII�` Figure
RUM 11111111
2002 Phase I Pantops Site Traffic 4
A
o a
N 0 °
0
-5
�
V)
1834(1330)
C.-1
(N `� 26(2) �—_ 1845(1249)
24(48) j
v, L '~ 1663(1089) yr 290(95)
Rt 250 IF 165(243)
915 (2037) 28(18) ? 1 t r 735 (1859)-4" '41r
792(1898) I 267(67)1
98(191)
00 146(249) m N M
,b e! V N M
1- U 00 M V11
cu
s~
4"0 'b
al
/ / ,--, 00
rn w
(-, a)
wl
N M
N CAN
JV
N r
Exist. Bank
L L51 (128) J y L At---67(72) Entrance
Ln
rn
67(167) 4 t trl
o,
21 (51)--01. O°
v)
M
00 On
00 N VD
00 V .—
LEGEND: Hickman Rd J 1 0
00-AM Peak Hour
51 (96)A 1 At
(00)- PM Peak Hour
7(18)-1 - N
M
h
..eliiikv. Figure
«ill1111111 2002 Projected Background &
t� 5
Phase I Pantops Site Traffic
M
.i: o
A
cn
o -6
a) a
o .5
1V
-41— i ,I.,... -4—
Yr Yr
Rt 250
► +®� � ►®
____..,....-..
• { r
17r
-. t
rx U
a)
cn
e4
Exist. Bank
_/ Entrance i
i \ii
.► A . , ..v
11
b
. ►
(1)
CC
Hickman
i1
Rd i t
LEGEND:
- Existing Lane Designation
. -Recommended Lane Designation
• -Recommended Signalization
Amnia Figure
NIIIIIIIIII
Ninwor2004 Roadway Geometrics 6
\AEA
I-- a) LL) d. 10 V' 0 0
Q W
LLI C
a)
a. >
Z m
W L
O) M O) a 0.N ai O
F-I co ti M� to
Yw CV _C
c
a (
a o a
c
Qw ao rn M co 2
2d
Z a .cc
W I
ti tr.,
ac0 0 oo O tf) U) C v-
0) O t[) �t o oco co Off) Li') 2
6^.,. r r r T r N"- L
EN c co
a,co
a) O inL
a) , ^a)^`
O c O cW
.00 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N C
O C
1 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) o w W
1— to to LQ to (o N CO O C
II w E Z cncnc)cncncn cn 0 fi
co t
0 0 000000 0 > a`) a
n- o o00000 0 �' t>o c
Q ai rStn ri to N a��i H
� COrn o
a
o L a)
�, w O .-.
d O '� ••
0 CO CO0 CO 000 CO Cp
co ~ Q 0 N
a. -0 U .c
a) 2 O
< a 0
. 2 C
c a to
a) �, 2
W .> f3 c
C ` �Y O
L 7 a) 0
Cr)
0 I- o C 3 a)
Z .. Cl) .c N
Z > .� Y io - C7
accoaco E 15
Q
3 W0 1a 3 U a) Q
8cBCC .c - 8
aLi5u. > (n 0- Z
Table 2
TRAFFIC GROWTH TRENDS
Phase I Pantops Development-Charlottesville, Virginia
ROUTE 250-ROUTE 20 EAST OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO I-64 EAST OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
AVERAGE
DAILY
YEAR TRAFFIC PERCENT CHANGE
1992 31000 -
1993 32000 3.1
1994 33000 3.0
1995 34000 2.9 •
1996 35000 2.9
AVERAGE YEAR GROWTH: 3.0
AVERAGE YEAR GROWTH USED: 3.0
SOURCE: VDOT Primary Roads ADT Books.
Table 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS A
•
•
ROADWAY SEGMENTS OR
CONTROLLED ACCESS
L.O.S. HIGHWAYS INTERSECTIONS
>11.AFree flow, low No vehicle waits
traffic density. longer than one signal i •
indication.
B Delay is not unreasonable, On a rare occasion • .
stable traffic flow. motorists wait
through more than
one signal indication. .
Stable condition, movements Intermittently drivers
somewhat restrictcd due to wait through more than •
C higher volumes, but not one signal indication, 4y
objectionable for motorists. and occasionally backups
may develop behind left
turning vehicles, traffic ��'�� '
flow still stable and
acceptable.
Movements more restricted, Delays at intersections
queues• and delays may occur may become extensive
during short peaks, but with some, especially .
D lower demands occur often left-turning vehicles D
enough to permit clearing, waiting two or more
thus preventing excessive signal indications, but "›.
backups. enough cycles with lower `L';
demand occur to permit >kple
el
periodic clearance, thus
co
preventing excessive
back-ups. i
Actual capacity of the Very long queues may .�
E roadway involves delay create lengthy delays,
to all motorists due to especially for left
congestion. turning vehicles.
Forced flow with demand Backups from locations •
volumes greater than downstream restrict or , ,
c ,
F capacity resulting in prevent movement of �/�
complctc congestion. vehicles out of approach efg<Volumes drop to zero in creating a•storngc area
extreme casts.. during part or all of
an hour. .4%)°
S CE: A Policy on DcsLan of Design of Urban Hii,hways and ''
Arterial Streets - AASHTO, 1973 based upon material
published in Highway Capacity Manual, National '
Academy of Sciences, 190.
m� » qn � finemq o9 70 ,_
�"8 24 \ ' R ® ( oiq k / - & .-- ,_ col,_»
�a
wm
Ea- % R
, $ � M < Om om000 Uo o < 0 < < <
O _J $
2
CL
o �k oq@c o ' cO ® ¥ of on m # 1- #
/ / R ƒ e6 ' d vim \ \ 6 w & a4 awww
Ma_
co < 0 2
\ 7 ƒ m mm = moo = < _ _ « _ « «
w _1m
w
CC
k �13
D w _ o cry al c ¥ o q m r
R YRf & w � a / 4 � / / ww .
@ 6
Oo - " E
(Yu)
72_ � % S ct$ 2 o 72 m < om o < oom m <ƒ R f O0-b fEf �2 ww > a w >_owl_ 2me r90 � mgc NM 5� Ras \ k 6 ¥® @ ± Q 2 $ 1 =
n ° ® ƒ CW
oO.› % Can.
/ 96
< N 0 $ R °
7 a) ¢ Icm = = = oom m < _ ±
Q '1 . $ 6E
mm
0. / o tt t « t « k2
0 2O mmck = = cmk � E m ) 3m32 om
cc
\ k / w � � g w z � g / M W2 S � 2 % $ � �
ƒ � < $% 2
co ■
\ • f f
/ b / 2 2 \ R \ % 2 / $
~ w - k k T C / 32 . 0
\ E b & : : : f § O\
0 (0 0 / / \ a ® E
o w £ •-
& E ' o
fo § 2
\ m3
cC E .cn
f \ / 2 \t k k
o
I a ° e E
ow
/ f 0
w $ m 2 = E 2 S
$ 2 5 E k c § Ik
= 2 = as LI_ g t U
\ \ \ 0 j I— I
2
w w w m f ZZ 1
Appendix
APPENDIX A
WSA TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
I I 11,,,1 :,2n2'11 I I
; ;; ; ,,", 9
i
4m,,A4
1:11 1 1'1:11 1
e a-
1 1 1111.1 212 '21
WellW1 tii 14';
flrti
'21 11)1 1 ,- ,V54. t44,g4,
, -
. 4. e. .
! 2V21i !:;211
,
t :11,1
9 " t4t :
“.
:7
11?
!l!N
!AI
HH
! !
'
!
.." .
A:
! 1.1.! !
1 !1.01 ,11
'. 9
y y
1 :
IC.1
! !
A " : A 7
' 119n!! " iffj!nn!
U !;11 t-tt=i
nd 2'71121 122;1!
1 '1I5n1 1 1 11.1
.0„
i n55:11 i V5551i
IN!
!i: t"=t4: 111 4 444!
I 11.1 l'121 1"M_I F2121
LIL1 19;11 i V''2221
• :;: ,:
: .2... .
t ! !N1.1 t ttt! ! iNL1 t-ttt!
1
I I . t
IIIiiI° !!'tlt`. IiIItr2t,
til!WH t,:tt4
0, 0.00
5
2!2221 I I!
1!1: 1
!i!
1 :
1.1 .141 1
: I:
•""' II
1:7:! 13i i 13i i
! ! !
.
:,,H :Z1 1 1 ilI
i1J ,151
!'"• ' K:f"
M!!nrfl tt'12". tt:
- inn!MI
. . . .
. ,
: .:
11: .:•
1 iin.i iii:=1 1 Wei,.! IT-1;11
t ttt!
1 TAU ri';;.1
: :A:.: - ===I : :AI-I
. . „ . .
5': : : '4,•. :
Tey
1 l'ifl.,! 1-121: 1 ''ici..1 V;11'.11
. _ . .
!IT.Mi
.
csim:-- 1m5m : :::. .- : 1:,:
.
, -
:2 Ii1:61:': ""'-': = :°1:4'.
Ii OI,' 4z="1 iieq.17; 1:1"t
: :::: : :
11,1:11,511 1 ii::111
t . . . .
q:21t1 : I IIIXI ,II
In IAIII Ill INI'I"'.'"'fl
H ! liir.14.; III: i :2i Ilil'H.4=Agx..r.7.1
1i1 1114"--1 Ai 11'1-------:
. . . ,
111 1 11 1 : I:j 1 !
iii Li i 1 1z1 11.! i
. .1. . .
ip.L11 i 111-1.,11 :
. . . :
1.11 1 i 1.1_11
I :
IM122'211 1 iVi!!!!ffti
: ',..=:
. . . .
. .
I i 'Jim! iii,1 Enn!
I 72i2;1
PAL! iNi„!
.t. .2,
It;
i Pfl.1 21H1
2-551! ! i41 I 'TL12!
4 tvt: -g .11
• IIIiLi: rE 0. ,Etr:
II
z====
C2W:F; l'15,1:17j
imi;i1 Ii212
i
I .:
. . 0.
Li!
Ii
1! ! ! ! !-! ! !
II
II I II
:3!
11-12-A2:1-22.! LIi!
ff:1Mnni
A A
2
APPENDIX B
PANTOPS SITE PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY PARCEL
n
Pc.)
CI) .
Al . -0.. . .. . - ------11)'--—-• ---
1 .
-1
--....-.------
C).
lin
I
\ (
'1.
..
! .k a:...
\ \ ., ---
•:'? „ .1 ° (.;
\ s„,‘ \
Q9
) i t lit
4,_ c
---
) ____
.,.,.., ...,,
, ,.:..,
, I -
n
1 , ....-
\
\ 1 ,
,
ti it.
at 1 c8 1 •\I
1
o
i
,
, . N
,
..------- \_ \k
\
. Oc—
ks ,) \
. e ,
, __ t .......,
...„,_
l
n
'1St
ri
--,,...
Pah
.11
'`,1 • . • .
,\
----I)-,....--_.- 11---------(41
,
-c-
,4- . ../,. -b.. •...i.-
. ,
t \
s..:1 ......,,,„...---•- ,\\
•)
-..'•\
(
z fr • \1 -- •,
,
i
'i..
•,
. ____.._1:::_..____\...__.• 'O..•
\ •\
\ 2-_, ,,,- • t
11
\..r• \\ \\ 7.. '. 1 , 1 ii t
1
)
0 9,
4 .
.,,
.41 ....
NV \
r-- i
• „., - ', ,.t c._,, 1
... __ _______\
....
. ---- ,
I ,
, ..,...
n •
,...,,. \.• „ ,
, • t
------1\ „.
. ,..., ., 4,,, 1 ,
\ •,:. ,A.,, ..„.
.,.,, .,,,... ,„
\ 1
,
1
•
•
, ,..„‘. ,,..,
..•.. ..,,, , ,. 0 i_ ,
,.., .4,, ,,.:. .-S
. ,„ ,.. ,,,,
I
io,. ... \ ' 0
9, L.-( ‘1` t.
1-:,.• "4„ N----, , (.....1_ 1 1
1, 1 0
•
0 VI 1. •;,
,,,,
. vi.
V;
• 't',t,. 1.".i,,,,
\ ,
0„, •
•\, ''''kr '''',?; \
. 0
\ 7.„..,..)
L..
...).
.,...t.
, ---- .-- e. __.........) • \
,..
. • 5,....._- 7.:=7- ..)
... ....
.........,.--.--.
..._`,.._....„ ._ ...:--.
. .
n
15-0-
()
....,...
Pn
--n
`.i . .
_:,-----4.
.. 44 I)----------
\ -,--.
\\4- • _.r, -1
'' 11 \
v.
1
c---'- z)\ :..„.
__tte
-4 a
0 • ---.d3 ___---------.....)
. ,
,
,
,
,1 \,.
t [
;_ ,.,.
i sup ‘ i, i \
e.,
I,
',, 1- ••••• 1, 1
'?:)0. , ,
, , .
A tt" c.:).• i
i ,
k)44sirt s ______
)
r., .n 1
vt ,
__
___.....
. ,
,
,,....,) ,,
\ i. ,
\
H , k ; k
,
, ,
\ \
,
,
, ,
.. ,_ ,
\ , ,
, @ %,. (...,,,a , ,. If.,
_ - 0.-. 1 i
t% S 1
, 0 ,
,
.,,,,
• \ •
• ,
•.-------;---,-- \ ,,
,.. ' I
\._.
\„.....r.-2
e ,...
t ,,,
• _ ej
, _._.
cl (
a
...,. _. ... .,_....-
. \
irP,
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) STATE FARM BLVD
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25SFBA.HC9
Area Type: Other 4-22-98 AM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T RILT RILT R
No. Lanes 10 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 10 0 0
Volumes I 10 2671 268 1701 I 14 321
PHF or PK151 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 10.95 0.951
Lane W (ft) I 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.01
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I
Heavy Veh' 5 21 2 5 I 2 21
Parking IN N IN N IN N I
Bus Stops 1 01 01 01
Con. Peds 1 01 01 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N 1
Arr Type I 3 31 3 3 1 3 31
RTOR Vols I 01 01 01
Lost Time I 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 13.00 3.001
Prop. Sharel I I I
Prop. Prot. I I 1 I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left INB Left *
Thru * I Thru
Right * I Right *
Peds I Peds
WB Left * ISB Left
Thru * * I Thru
Right I Right
Peds I Peds
NB Right * IEB Right
SB Right IWB Right
Green 14.OA 34.OA 'Green 9.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 5.0 (Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB T 1861 3619 0.006 0.514 5.4 B 6.5 B
R 814 1583 0.345 0.514 6.6 B
WB L 379 1770 0.744 0.214 21.9 C 5.4 B
T 2792 3619 0. 674 0.771 2.9 A
NB L 253 1770 0.059 0.143 16.8 C 10.9 B
R 633 1583 0.054 0.400 8.3 B
Intersection Delay = 5.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.578
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) STATE FARM BLVD
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25SFBP.HC9
Area Type: Other 5-11-98 PM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T RILT R I L T RILT R
No. Lanes 10 2 1 11 2 0 1 1 0 1 10 0 0
Volumes I 1578 671 71 986 1 171 3491
PHF or PK151 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 10.95 0.951
Lane W (ft) I 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.01
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I
% Heavy Vehl 5 21 2 5 I 2 21
Parking IN N IN N IN N I
Bus Stops I 01 01 01
Con. Peds I 01 01 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I
Arr Type 1 3 31 3 3 I 3 31
RTOR Vols I 01 01 01
Lost Time I 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 13.00 3.001
Prop. Share) I I 1
Prop. Prot. I I I 1
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left INB Left *
Thru * I Thru
Right * I Right *
Peds I Peds
WB Left * ISB Left
Thru * * 1 Thru
Right I Right
Peds I Peds
NB Right * IEB Right
SB Right IWB Right
Green 5.OA 41.OA (Green 11.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 5.0 IYellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB T 2223 3619 0.784 0.614 7.8 B 7.7 B
R 973 1583 0.073 0.614 3.5 A
WB L 152 1770 0.494 0.086 21.8 C 3.5 A
T 2688 3619 0.405 0.743 2.2 A
NB L 303 1770 0.593 0.171 19.5 C 19.7 C
R 475 1583 0.773 0.300 19.7 C
Intersection Delay = 8.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.781
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) STATE FARM BLVD
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25SFSA.HC9
Area Type: Other 4-22-98 AM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T RILT RILT R I L T R
No. Lanes 10 2 1 11 2 0 1 1 0 1 10 0 0
Volumes I 735 2671 290 1845 I 35 541
PHF or PK151 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 10.95 0.951
Lane W (ft) I 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 !
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I
% Heavy Vehl 5 21 2 5 I 2 21
Parking IN N IN N IN N 1
Bus Stops I 01 01 01
Con. Peds I 01 01 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I
Arr Type I 3 31 3 3 I 3 31
RTOR Vols I 01 01 01
Lost Time I 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 13.00 3.001
Prop. Share! I I I
Prop. Prot. ) 1 I I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left INB Left *
Thru * 1 Thru
Right * 1 Right *
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left * ISB Left
Thru * * 1 Thru
Right I Right
Peds I Peds
NB Right * IEB Right
SB Right IWB Right
Green 14.OA 34.OA IGreen 9.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 5.0 (Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB T 1861 3619 0.437 0.514 7.0 B 6.9 B
R 814 1583 0.345 0.514 6.6 B
WB L 379 1770 0.804 0.214 25.0 C 6.2 B
T 2792 3619 0.730 0.771 3.4 A
NB L 253 1770 0.146 0.143 17.0 C 11.8 B
R 633 1583 0.090 0.400 8.4 B
Intersection Delay = 6.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.639
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) STATE FARM BLVD
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25SFSP.HC9
Area Type: Other 5-11-98 PM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T RILT RILT R I L T R
No. Lanes 10 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 10 0 0
Volumes I 1859 671 95 1249 1222 3731
PHF or PK151 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 10.95 0.951
Lane W (ft) I 12.0 12.0 ' 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.01
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I
% Heavy Vehl 5 21 2 5 I 2 21
Parking IN N IN N IN N I
Bus Stops I 01 01 01
Con. Peds I 01 01 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I
Arr Type I 3 31 3 3 I 3 31
RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01
Lost Time I 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 13.00 3.001
Prop. Share' I I I
Prop. Prot. ! 1 I I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left INB Left *
Thru * I Thru
Right * I Right *
Peds I Peds
WB Left * ISB Left
Thru * * I Thru
Right I Right
Peds I Peds
NB Right * 'EB Right
SB Right IWB Right
Green 5.OA 41.OA 'Green 11.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 5.0 IYellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB T 2223 3619 0.924 0.614 13.0 B 12.7 B
R 973 1583 0.073 0.614 3.5 A
WB L 152 1770 0.659 0.086 26.8 D 4.2 A
T 2688 3619 0.514 0.743 2.6 A
NB L 303 1770 0.771 0.171 25.7 D 23.9 C
R 475 1583 0.827 0.300 22.7 C
Intersection Delay = 11.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.893
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) ROLKIN DR
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25ROBA.HC9
Area Type: Other 4-22-98 AM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound Southbound
ILTRILTRIL TRLTR
No. Lanes 1 1 2 1 11 2 1 12 1 1 0 > 1 1
Volumes 1 28 741 771 45 1618 261 32 5 83 7 2 32
PHF or PK1510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W (ft) 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Grade I 0 1 0 I 0 0
% Heavy Vehl 2 5 21 2 5 21 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parking IN N IN N IN N N N
Bus Stops I 01 01 0 0
Con. Peds 1 01 01 0 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N (Y/N) N
Arr Type 1 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vols 1 01 01 0 0
Lost Time 13.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share! I I
Prop. Prot. ! I I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left * INB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds I Peds
WB Left * * ISB Left *
Thru * * 1 Thru *
Right * * 1 Right *
Peds 1 Peds
NB Right * * IEB Right *
SB Right * IWB Right *
Green 7.OA 12.OA 35.OA 'Green 9.OA 6.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 5.0 IYellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 157 1770 0.184 0.089 24.6 C 13.1 B
T 1488 3619 0.550 0.411 13.4 B
R 880 1583 0.092 0.556 6.1 B
WB L 472 1770 0.100 0.267 16.1 C 11.9 B
T 2131 3619 0.839 0.589 12.0 B
R 1056 1583 0.026 0.667 3.3 A
NB L 393 3539 0.089 0.111 23.2 C 15.5 C
T 207 1863 0.024 0.111 23.0 C
R 598 1583 0.145 0.378 11.9 B
SB LT 139 1793 0.065 0.078 24.9 C 20.2 C
R 317 1583 0.107 0.200 19.0 C
Intersection Delay = 12.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.584
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) ROLKIN DR
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25ROBP.HC9
Area Type: Other 4-22-98 PM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND
I Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
IL T R 1 L T RIL T R I L T R
No. Lanes 11 2 1 1 1 2 1 12 1 1 10 > 1 1
Volumes I 18 1770 1531 28 990 21 21 5 1431 6 5 11
PHF or PK1510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W (ft) I12.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.01 12.0 12.0
Grade 1 0 I 0 1 0 I 0
% Heavy Vehl 2 5 21 2 5 21 2 2 21 2 2 2
Parking IN N IN N IN N IN N
Bus Stops I 01 01 01 0
Con. Peds 1 01 01 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N
Arr Type 1 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3
RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 0
Lost Time 13.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share! I I 0 I
Prop. Prot. ! I I I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left * INB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds I Peds
WB Left * * ISB Left *
Thru * * I Thru *
Right * * I Right *
Peds I Peds
NB Right * * IEB Right
SB Right * IWB Right
Green 7.OA 7.OA 49.OA (Green 10.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 5.0 (Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 157 1770 0.121 0.089 24.4 C 19.0 C
T 2051 3619 0.954 0.567 20.0 C
R 897 1583 0.179 0.567 6.1 B
WB L 374 1770 0.078 0.211 18.4 C 4.5 A
T 2493 3619 0.439 0.689 4.1 A
R 1091 1583 0.002 0.689 2.8 A
NB L 392 3204 0.059 0.122 22.6 C 15.6 C
T 228 1863 0.022 0.122 22.5 C
R 528 1583 0.286 0.333 14.4 B
SB LT 223 1821 0.049 0.122 22.5 C 19.5 C
R 387 1583 0.031 0.244 16.7 C
Intersection Delay = 14.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.681
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) ROLKIN DR
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25ROSA.HC9
Area Type: Other 4-22-98 AM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE
I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound
ILTRILT RLTRILTR
No. Lanes 11 2 1 11 2 1 2 1 1 10 > 1 1
Volumes I 28 792 1461 165 1663 26 164 5 1681 7 2 32
PHF or PK1510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W (ft) 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.01 12.0 12.0
Grade 1 0 I 0 0 I 0
Heavy Veh I 2 5 21 2 5 2 2 2 21 2 2 2
Parking IN N IN N N N IN N
Bus Stops I 01 0 01 0
Con. Peds I 01 0 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N
Arr Type I 3 3 31 3 3 3 3 3 31 3 3
RTOR Vols I 01 0 01 0
Lost Time 13.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share! I 1
Prop. Prot. ' I I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left * INB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left * * ISB Left *
Thru * * 1 Thru *
Right * * 1 Right *
Peds I Peds
NB Right * * IEB Right *
SB Right * IWB Right *
Green 7.OA 12.OA 35.OA 'Green 9.OA 6.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 5.0 'Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 157 1770 0.184 0.089 24.6 C 13.0 B
T 1488 3619 0.589 0.411 13.8 B
R 880 1583 0.175 0.556 6.4 B
WB L 472 1770 0.369 0.267 17.6 C 13.1 B
T 2131 3619 0.863 0.589 12.8 B
R 1056 1583 0.026 0.667 3.3 A
NB L 393 3539 0.453 0.111 24.8 C 18.8 C
T 207 1863 0.024 0.111 23.0 C
R 598 1583 0.296 0.378 12.8 B
SB LT 139 1793 0.065 0.078 24.9 C 20.2 C
R 317 1583 0.107 0.200 19.0 C
Intersection Delay = 13.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.644
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4e 05-11-1998
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) RT 250 (N-S) ROLKIN DR
Analyst: WSA File Name: 25ROSP.HC9
Area Type: Other 4-22-98 PM PEAK
Comment: 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
IL T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
No. Lanes 11 2 1 11 2 1 12 1 1 1 0 > 1 1
Volumes I 18 1898 2491 243 1089 21 277 5 3131 6 5 11
PHF or PK1510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.9510.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W (ft) 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 12.01 12.0 12.0
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0
% Heavy Vehl 2 5 21 2 5 21 2 2 21 2 2 2
Parking IN N IN N IN N IN N
Bus Stops 1 01 01 01 0
Con. Peds I 01 01 01 0
Ped Button I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N I (Y/N) N
Arr Type 1 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 3
RTOR Vols I 01 01 01 0
Lost Time 13.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share' 1 I 0 1
Prop. Prot. 1 I I I
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left * INB Left *
Thru * 1 Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left * * ISB Left *
Thru * * 1 Thru *
Right * * I Right *
Peds 1 Peds
NB Right * * IEB Right
SB Right * IWB Right
Green 7.OA 7.OA 49.OA (Green 10.OA
Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 5.0 (Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 157 1770 0.121 0.089 24.4 C 30.4 D
T 2051 3619 1.023 0.567 33.5 D
R 897 1583 0.292 0.567 6.6 B
WB L 374 1770 0.685 0.211 24.7 C 7.9 B
T 2493 3619 0.483 0.689 4.3 A
R 1091 1583 0.002 0.689 2.8 A
NB L 392 3204 0.769 0.122 30.9 D 24.1 C
T 228 1863 0.022 0.122 22.5 C
R 528 1583 0.623 0.333 17.9 C
SB LT 223 1821 0.049 0.122 22.5 C 19.5 C
R 387 1583 0.031 0.244 16.7 C
Intersection Delay = 22.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.909
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e HAN1SA.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) HANSEN RD (E-W) RT 250
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst WSA
Date of Analysis 4/23/98
Other Information 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE (AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R L T R I L T R
No. Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield I NI N 1
Volumes I 915 981 24 1834 571
PHF I .95 .951 .95 .95 .951
Grade I 0 I 0 0 I
MC's (%) I I I
SU/RV's (%) I I
CV's (%) I I I
PCE's I 11.10 1.101
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e HAN1SA.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 482
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 789
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 789
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.92
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1066
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 459
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 459
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
5.0
NB R 66 789 5.0 0.2 A
WB L 28 459 8.4 0.1 B 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.2 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e HAN1SP.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) HANSEN RD (E-W) RT 250
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst WSA
Date of Analysis 4/23/98
Other Information 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE (PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
No. Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield I NI NI I
Volumes I 2037 1911 48 1330 I 1281
PHF I .95 .951 .95 .95 I .951
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I
MC's (%) I I I I
SU/RV's (%) I I I
CV's (%) I I I I
PCE's I 11.10 1 1.101
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e HAN1SP.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1072
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 396
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 396
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.62
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EP
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 2345
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 94
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 94
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.40
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
14.5
NB R 149 396 14.5 2.0 C
WB L 56 94 90.9 3.6 F 3.2
Intersection Delay = 1.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SFHICSAI.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) STATE FARM BLVD (E-W) HICKMAN RD
Major Street Direction NS
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst WSA
Date of Analysis 4/22/98
Other Information 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE (AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
No. Lanes 11 2 0 10 2 < 0 I > 1 < 0 10 0 0
Stop/Yield I NI NI I
Volumes I 16 53 I 440 881 51 0 71
PHF I .95 .95 I .95 .951 .95 .95 .951
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I
MC's (%) I I I I
SU/RV's (%) I I I
CV's (%) I I I I
PCE's 11.10 I 11.10 1.10 1.101
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road *7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SFHICSAI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 278
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1001
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1001
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 556
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 862
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 862
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 582
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 498
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 487
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 582
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 449
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 439
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 59 439 >
EB T 0 487 > 471 8.9 0.5 B 8.9
EB R 8 1001 >
NB L 19 862 4.3 0.0 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SFHICSP1.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) STATE FARM BLVD (E-W) HICKMAN RD
Major Street Direction NS
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst WSA
Date of Analysis 4/22/98
Other Information 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE (PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
I Northbound I Southbound Eastbound 1 Westbound
1 L T R I L T R L T R I L T R
No. Lanes 11 2 0 1 0 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield I NI N I
Volumes I 14 472 1 122 3 96 0 181
PHF I .95 .95 I .95 .95 .95 .95 .951
Grade I 0 I 0 0 I
MC's (%) I I I
SU/RV's (%) I I
CV's (%) I I 1
PCE's 11.10 1 1.10 1.10 1.101
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road *7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SFHICSP1.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 66
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1282
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1282
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 131
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1458
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1458
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 642
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 459
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 454
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 642
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 411
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 406
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 111 406 >
EB T 0 454 > 456 11.1 1.4 C 11.1
EB R 21 1282 >
NB L 17 1458 2.5 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.8 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SIT2SA1.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) ROLKIN CT. (E-W) SITE RD.
Major Street Direction NS
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst WSA
Date of Analysis 4/22/98
Other Information 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE (AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
I Northbound I Southbound 1 Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
No. Lanes 10 > 1 < 0 10 > 1 1 11 1 < 0 10 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield I NI NI I
Volumes I 5 66 51 67 61 611 67 21 51 5 5 67
PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
MC's (%) I I I I
SU/RV's (%) I I I
CV's (%) I I I I
PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road *7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SIT2SA1.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB Ep
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 72 64
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1273 1285
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1273 1285
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 1.00
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 74 128
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1581 1490
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1581 1490
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.95 1.00
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 276 214
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 782 842
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.94
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 739 795
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 225 282
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 760 699
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.92 0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.93 0.89
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 708 625
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SIT2SA1.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 78 625 6.6 0.4 B
EB T 24 795 > 6.0
EB R 6 1285 > 861 4.3 0.0 A
WB L 6 708 >
WB T 6 739 > 1156 3.4 0.2 A 3.4
WB R 78 1273 >
NB L 6 1490 2.4 0.0 A 0.2
SB L 78 1581 2.4 0.0 A 0.8
Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec/veh
I-TCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SIT2SP1.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) ROLKIN CT. (E-W) SITE RD.
Major Street Direction NS
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst WSA
Date of Analysis 4/22/98
Other Information 2002 BACKGROUND & PHASE I SITE (PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound Westbound
I L T R I L T RILT R L T R
No. Lanes 10 > 1 < 0 10 > 1 1 11 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield I NI NI
Volumes I 5 167 51 72 120 1191 167 51 5 5 5 72
PHF I .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade I 0 I 0 I 0 0
MC's (%) I I I
SU/RV's (%) 1 I
CV's (%) I I I
PCE's 11.10 11.10 I1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road *7.00 3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SIT2SP1.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 178 126
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1125 1195
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1125 1195
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93 0.99
Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 181 251
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1406 1302
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1406 1302
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.94 1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0.94 0.99
Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 510 388
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 589 683
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.93 0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 548 636
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99 0.91
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 416 488
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 574 516
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.84 0.92
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88 0.94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.87
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 503 448
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e SIT2SP1.HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 194 448 14.1 2.5 C
EB T 59 636 > 12.1
EB R 6 1195 > 665 6.0 0.3 B
WB L 6 503 >
WB T 6 548 > 984 4.1 0.3 A 4.1
WB R 84 1125 >
NB L 6 1302 2.8 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 84 1406 2.7 0.1 A 0.6
Intersection Delay = 4.1 sec/veh