The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 02-18; THE BLUFFS; TRAFFIC ANALYSIS;TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THE BLUFFS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA February 20, 2004 Prepared by: LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 JPK/JR/DT 3-02-1205 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. Introduction 1 Project Description. Existing Conditions. 1 1 Existing Traffic Volumes 7 Project Traffic Generation 7 Project Traffic Distribution/Assignment 11 Cumulative Projects 11 Significance Criteria 11 Traffic Analysis Methodology 11 Existing Operations 15 Existing + Project Operations 18 Vacation of Locust Avenue 18 On And Off-Street Parking 18 Year 2020 Analysis 18 Driveway Sight Distance 18 Significance of Impacts/Conclusions 18 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 8 2. Projects Traffic Generation 10 3. Intersection Operations 16 4. Existing Peak Hour Street Segment Operations 17 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1. Vicinity Map 2 2. Project Area Map 8 3. Site Plan 4 4. Existing Conditions Diagram 5 5. Existing Traffic Volumes 9 6. Regional Traffic Distribution 12 7. Total Projects Traffic Volumes 13 8. Existing + Total Project Traffic Volumes 14 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego LINSCOTT LAW/ & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS A. B. C. D. APPENDICES Jlanufef Count Sheets Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets Intersection Analysis Worksheets City of Carlsbad Sight Distance Requirements 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THE BLUFFS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA February 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study has been prepared to determine the potential impacts on the local circulation system due to the development of The Bluffs" project in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project is located east of Interstate 5, south of Chinquapin Avenue and west of Adams Street. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map. Figure 2 shows a more detailed project area map. The additional traffic generated by the project has been added to the existing on-street traffic volumes and the traffic impacts were analyzed at several key intersections and street segments within the project area. Included in this traffic assessment is the following: • Project description; • Existing conditions assessment; • Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment; • Intersection/street segment capacity analysis; • Access discussion and; • Conclusions PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is planned to have 78 condominium units. The project is bound by Harrison Street, Chinquapin Avenue, and Adams Street; with Locust Avenue running through the project site. Project access will be provided on Chinquapin Street and Harrison Street. Figure 3 shows the conceptual site plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS The following is a brief description of the roadways in the area surrounding the proposed project. Figure 4 shows an existing conditions diagram for the streets and Intersections in the project area. 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOURCE: LLG Engineers. 2002 MILES LLGVCriY.DWG LINSCOTT LAW GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 1 VICINITi' MAP THE BLUFFS >\ ] ' ,00 \, ^ s# ^ CHESTNUT q.i<l SOURCE: Thomas Bros. Maps NO SCALE LINSCOTT LAW& GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 2 PROJECT AREA MAP THE BLUFFS LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 3 SITE PLAN THE BLUFFS LEGEND (S) - Traffic Signal BS - Bus Stop NP — No Parking 2U — Two lane undivided roadway 4D — Four lane divided roadway — - Dirt Road TT — Stop sign REV. 2/18/04 NO SCALE FIG1205.DWG UNSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS DIAGRAM THE BLUFFS LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN N E E R S Interstate 5 (1-5) is a north/south facility, which extends from the United States/Mexico border, the length of California and beyond. In the vicinity of the project, 1-5 provides four thru lanes in each direction. There is an interchange at Tamarack Avenue in the project vicinity. JEFFERSON STREET functions as a Collector Street according to the City's General Plan. Jefferson Street is undivided and has 2 lanes. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk is provided and parking is permitted. There is a prima fascia 25 mile per hour speed limit and bus service is provided by North County Transit District route 322 ADAMS STREET functions as a Collector Street according to the City's General Plan. Adams Street is undivided and has 2 lanes. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are provided and parking is permitted. There is a posted 25 miles per hour speed limit. HARRISON STREET functions as a Local Street according to the City's General Plan. Harrison Street is undivided and has 2 lanes. Harrison Street is adjacent to the project site. Parking is permitted on portions of Harrison Street. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are not provided on Harrison Street. There is a prima fascia speed limit of 25 miles per hour. TAMARACK AVENUE functions as a Modified Collector according to the City's General Plan. Tamarack is undivided and has 2 lanes east of Adams Street and 4 lanes west of Adams Street. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are provided and parking is permitted east of Adams Street. Bike lanes are also provided east of Adams Street. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. An 80-foot right-of-way should be maintained between Jefferson Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. Secondary arterial standards should be maintained between Jefferson Street and Adams Street. Bus service on Tamarack Avenue is provided by North County Transit District route 322. CHINQUAPIN AVENUE functions as a Local Street according to the City's General Plan. Chinquapin Avenue is undivided and has 2 lanes. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are provided and parking is permitted. There is a prima fascia 25 miles per hour speed limit. LOCUST AVENUE Is currently a dirt road connecting Harrison Street to Adams Street. There is no posted speed limit and parking is permitted. HARBOR VIEW LANE functions as a Local Street Cul-de-sac according to the City's General Plan. Harbor View Lane is undivided and has 2 lanes. Curb, 1205.Rep The Bluffs Trafric Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS gutter, and sidewalks are provided and parking is permitted. There is a prima fascia speed limit of 25 miles per hour. CAPE AIRE LANE functions as a Local Street Cul-de-sac according to the City's General Plan. Cape Aire Lane is undivided and has 2 lanes. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are provided and parking is permitted. There is a prima fascia speed limit of 25 miles per hour. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Table 1 is a summary of the most recent available daily traffic volumes (ADT's) from City of Carisbad records. Traffic Data Service Southwest conducted AM/PM peak hour (7-9 AM & 4-6 PM) traffic counts at the all of the key intersections on July 11, 2002 and February 18, 2004. Based on discussions with city staff, the following key intersections were analyzed. • Tamarack Avenue/Interstate 5 southbound Ramps • Tamarack Avenue/Interstate 5 northbound Ramps • Tamarack Avenue/Adams Street • Tamarack Avenue/Jefferson Street • Chinquapin Avenue/Jefferson Street Figure 5 shows the existing daily and AM/PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections and ADT volumes on the study segments. Appendix A contains copies ofthe manual intersection count sheets. PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Table 2 shows the traffic generation calculations for the proposed project, using San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) generation rates for multi- family unit residential. It is calculated that the project, which consists of 78 multi- family will generate about 620 daiiy trip ends (310 in and 310 out) with 10 inbound/40 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 44 inbound/19 outbound during the PM peak hour. 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego -7- LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 1 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES STREET SEGMENT DATE 24-HOUR VOLUME (ADT) Tamarack Avenue West of 1-5 2000 15,500 1-5 to Pio Pico Drive 2000 21,800 Pio Pico Drive to Adams Street 2000 16,100 East of Adams Street 2000 12,700 SOURCE: City of Carlsbad count records. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Tab1.1205 7/30/02 , 1 NOTE: — ADT's are shown midbloek - AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections REV. 2/18/04 ^ ^fi^ jj^^^^Sj^ NO SCALE nG1205.DWG LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM/PM PEAK HOUR <Sc ADTs THE BLUFFS esi UJ _i m < g LU Z Ui O o < I- o LU o a: a. UJ o X it: < LLI Q. o > z: o X < LU O. I- Z CO ^ I- 05 o > i- Z CO CO Q z LU 9: P K- < < Q 05 UJ Z) _l o > UJ h-< a: in N CO LU CO 13 Q Z < CT> 00 o 00 CN 00 o OJ CD ZD c/3 .4—' 'c 00 1^ E CD CD C > CO CD <^ TI § o <N O) — c I— 'j_ CL <D < C :2 CO, 0 o 1 ^ OQ < Q z: < CO 0 0) CD % ° CD o ^ E UJ cn CD ^ CD U5 cil-O -cQ CO h- < o CM rsi .Q CO -10- LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The project-generated traffic was distributed to the street system based on project access, the characteristics of the roadway system, the project's proximity to Interstate 5, and the existing turning movement counts at the key intersections. Figure 6 shows the estimated regional traffic distribution. Figure 7 shows the assignment of project traffic based on this distribution. Figure 8 shows the existing + project traffic volumes. CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Based on discussions with City staff, there are no cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, a cumulative project analysis is not required at this time. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA A traffic impact is considered to be significant if the addition of project traffic causes the intersection or street segment LOS to decrease to worse than LOS D during the peak hour, as outlined in the City's GrovAh Management Plan. For intersections or street segments which are currently operating worse than LOS D, a project impact will be considered significant if the project causes the ICU value at an intersection to increase by greater than 0.02 or the volume-to- capacity ratio at a segment to increase by greater than 0.02. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Three intersections along Tamarack Avenue and several street segments were analyzed to determine the potential impacts of the project. Different methodologies are utilized to analyze intersections and street segments, as outlined below. The signalized intersections were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU procedure is based on an article in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, August 1978 and assumes the traffic flow characteristics of signalized intersections. It computes the Level of Service (LOS) for the total intersection based upon a summation of volume to capacity (v/c) ratios forthe key conflicting movements. The ICU numerical vaiue represents the percent of signal green time, and thus, the capacity required to 1205.Rep ~ The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego -11- NOTES: {^x%^ - Regional Trip Distribution y.Y.% — Local Trip Distribution REV. 02/18/04 NO SCALE FIG1205.DWG LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION •12- THE BLUFFS NOTE: - ADT's are shown midbloek - AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections REV. 2/18/04 NO SCALE RG1205.DWG LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 7 -13- TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM/PM PEAK HOURS ic ADTs THE BLUFFS NOTE: - ADT's are shown midbloek - AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections REV. 2/1B/04 NO SCALE nG1205.DWG LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Figure 8 EXISTING + TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM/PM PEAK HOURS <Sc ADTs THE BLUFFS -14- LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS serve the traffic demand. The LOS for signalized intersections varies from A (free flow, little delay) to F ("jammed" conditions). Table 3 shows a summary of the existing and existing + project signalized intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix B includes a more detailed explanation of the ICU procedure and the intersection calculation sheets. The Unsignalized intersection of Chinquapin Avenue and Jefferson Street was analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology with help of the HCS 2000 unsignalized software. This methodology uses seconds of average delay to determine the Level of Service of the intersection. Like the ICU method, the Level of Service ranges from LOS A to LOS F. Table 3 shows the results of the unsignalized intersection analysis at the Chinquapin Avenue/Jefferson Street intersection. Appendix C contains a more detailed explanation of the unsignalized intersection analysis procedure and the intersection analysis worksheets. The kev street segments in the project area were analyzed on a peak hour basis. The greatest amount of peak hour turning volumes (either AM or PM peak) at an upstream or downstream intersection comprises the volumes utilized in the analysis. A volume to capacity ratio (V/C) is calculated for each direction of the street segment during the peak hour. The City of Carisbad assumes a one- direction capacity of 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour. A LOS is determined by using V/C thresholds. Table 4 shows a summary of the existing and existing + project street segment operations. EXISTING OPERATIONS Table 3 shows a summary of the existing intersections operations in the project area. This table shows that the signalized intersections in the study area are calculated to currently operate at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 4 shows a summary ofthe existing peak hour street segment operations in the project area. This table shows that all segments are calculated to currently operate at LOS A during peak hours. 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego -15- LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS I INTERSECTION rramarack Avenue/1-5 SB Ramps Tamarack Avenue/1-5 NB Ramps Tamarack Avenue/ Adams Street Tamarack Ave nue/J effe rson St. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Chinquapin Ave./Jefferson St. (Delay is shown for the SB left-turn movement) PEAK HOUR AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM TABLE 3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING ICU 0.52 0.62 0.53 0.69 0.61 0.74 0.62 0.57 DELAY 10.5 10.8 LOS = Level of Service ICU = intersection Capacity Utilization. A = Project attributable increase. 1. Based on the City of Carlsbad Significance Criteria DELAY - IVIeasured in Seconds LOS A B B B B C B A LOS B B EXISTING + PROJECT ICU 0.52 0.62 0.53 0.70 0.62 0.75 0.62 0.61 DELAY 10.6 11.0 LOS A B A C B C B B LOS B B ICU INCREASE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 DELAY INCREASE 0.1 0.2 SIG?' NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO SIG? NO NO 0.0 DELAY ICU LOS 0.0 < 10.0 0.0 < 0.60 A 10.1 to 15.0 0.61 to 0.70 B 15.1 to 25.0 0.71 to 0.80 C 25.1 to 35.0 0.81 to 0.90 D 35.1 to 50.0 0.91 to 1.00 E > 50.1 > 1.00 F Tab3.1205 07/30/02 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 4 EXISTING PEAK HOUR STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS STREET SEGMENT PEAK HOUR/ DIRECTION CAPACITY EXISTING VOL V/C LOS EXISTING + PROJECT VOL V/C LOS TAMARACK AVENUE West of 1-5 1-5 to Pio Pico Drive Pio Pico Drive to Adams Street East of Adams Street EB AM PM WB AM PM EB AM PM WB AM PM EB AM PM WB AM PM EB AM PM WB AM PM 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 1800 1800 740 702 529 776 564 1252 950 732 414 812 706 534 326 644 578 450 Source: Volumes are derived from peak hour vo VOL = Volumes V/C = Volumes over Capacity Capacity = 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour. umes shown on Figures 5 and 8. 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.22 0.16 0.35 0.26 0.20 0.12 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.16 0.13 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 755 710 530 781 571 1281 965 739 421 842 719 541 330 646 579 454 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.22 0.16 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.12 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.16 0.13 V/C 0.0 0.61 0.71 0.81 0.91 to to to to to > LOS 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00 A B C D E F A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Tab4.1205 07/30/02 LINSCOTT LAW/ & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS EXISTING + PROJECT OPERATIONS Table 3 shows that with the addition of project traffic. Levels of Service at the signalized intersections remain unchanged at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. No significant proiect impacts are calculated. Table 4 shows that with the addition of project traffic, the street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS A during the peak hours. No significant proiect impacts are calculated. VACATION OF LOCUST AVENUE Currently, Locust Avenue carries an average of 12 trips in a 24-hour period. Locust Avenue is an unimproved dirt road and very rough. It is believed that many ofthe trips on Locust Avenue are accessing existing houses located on the east end of Locust Avenue. With the vacation of Locust Avenue within the project boundary, the remaining houses facing Locust Avenue would still have access to Locust Avenue from Adams Street. Therefore, the vacation of Locust Avenue is not anticipated to negatively impact the surrounding street network. ON AND OFF-SITE PARKING The project proposes to conduct half street improvements on Harrison Street along the project frontage. Parallel parking will be provided on this segment. Certain sections of Harrison Street will be widened to meet the City of Carisbad Standards, which will create new on-street parking spaces. The project is proposing to provide on-site parking for residents and guests in accordance to the City of Carisbad code. There will be 156 resident spaces, 25 guest spaces, and 2 handicap spaces for a total of 183 on-site parking spaces. YEAR 2020 ANALYSIS Based on discussions with city staff, a year 2020 traffic analysis was not requested. 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE The City of Carisbad follows section 405 of the Caltrans "Highway Design Manual" for sight distance standards. As stated in section 405 of the Caltrans publication, minimum corner sight distance at private roadways is equal to the stopping sight distance shown in Table 201.1. For a design speed of 40km/h (25mph) a minimum corner/stopping sight distance of 50m (164-feet) is required. All of the three proposed driveway locations have greater than 164-feet of unobstructed sight distance. The project shall not build or place any objects (buildings, trees, etc..) that obstruct the minimum sight distance required by the City of Carisbad. Appendix D contains the City of Carisbad sight distance requirement sheet and Topic 405 and Topic 201 of the Caltrans "Highway Design Manual". SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS/CONCLUSIONS The project is calculated to not significantly impact the key intersections and street segments as identified in Tables 3 and 4. Therefore, no off-site capacity related mitigation measures are necessary. With the vacation of Locust Avenue, access to the existing two houses on the east end of Locust Avenue will be available from Adams Street. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary for the eastern portion of Locust Avenue. No property access will be disturbed by the vacation ofthe western portion of Locust Avenue. A minimum corner site distance of 164-feet should be maintained at all three project access points. It should be noted that the project is in accordance with the City of Carisbad Grov\^h Management Standard. 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego -19- TECHNICAL APPENDICES THE BLUFFS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA February 20, 2004 Prepared by: LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 JPK/JR/DT 3-02-1205 APPENDIXA MANUAL COUNT SHEETS JUl_-15-2002 10:0T AM TDSSW 6 19 390 S42T P . 02 Weathtr Countad by Board M Location Claar £ Dry M. Pariah D1-1428 1-5 S/B Ranips/Tamarack Ava Traffic Data Sarvica Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakes fcda, CA 92040 <619> 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Group 1 Study Name: 0ZZO8O10 Sita Coda : 00208010 Start Data: 07/09/02 Page : 1 1-5 Southbound Otf Rairip Tamarack Avenue 1-5 Southbound On Ramp Tamarack Avenua Southbound Uastbound Northbound Eastboond Start 1 Intvl. Tima 1 Laft Thru Rioht Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru •Rioht Peds L,«ft Thru Rieht Pada Total 07/09/02 07:001 30 1 36 0 102 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 72 0 3»4 07:15| 19 0 22 4 78 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 71 0 343 07:301 23 3 53 1 89 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 75 Oj 445 Q7i4S| 30 0 34 4 140 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 72 lj Hourj 102 4 145 9 409 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 290 1| 1691 odiooj 38 1 52 3| 104 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 86 0| 482 08:15 I 20 0 34 3 106 74 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 62 79 0{ 39« 08:301 47 1 25 3{ 112 90 0 0 0 0 0 1l 0 69 76 oj 424 08:451 29 34 21 107 82 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 94 62 411 Hour] 134 2 145 11| 429 337 0 0 0 0 0 3| 0 352 303 0| 1716 Totalj 236 6 290 201 838 667 0 0 0 0 0 3| 0 753 593 1 j 3407 X Apr. { 42.7 1.0 52.5 3.6| 55.6 44.3 -----100.Oj -55.9 44.0 - j - X Int. j 6.9 0.1 8.5 O.S| 24.5 19.5 • • 1 ----1 -22.1 17.4 • 1 - Paak Hour AnaIytla By EntIra mtersecticjn for tha Pariod: 07:00 on 07/09/02 to 08:45 on 07/09/02 Time 1 07:30 07:30 07:30 07:30 VoL I 111 4 173 111 439 556 0 0 0 0 1 j 0 427 312 1j Pet. I 37.1 1.3 57.8 3.61 55.2 44,7 0.0 o.oj 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.oj 0.0 57.7 42.1 o.lj Total 1 299 795 1 740 High j 08:00 07:45 08:15 07:30 Vol. 1 38 1 52 3| UO 115 0 0| 0 0 0 lj 0 125 75 oj Total j 94 255 1 200 PHF 1 0.795 0.779 0.250 0.925 JUL-15-2002 10:0T AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 03 Waather Counted by Board # Location Clear & Dry M. Parish D1-142B 1-5 S/B Ramps/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southuest 9773 Maine Avanue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Study Name: 02208010 Site code : 00208010 Start Data: 07/09/02 Page : 2 jl-5 Southbound Off Ramp jTamarack Avenue j South bound Was tbound Group 1 j 1-5 SDUthbouncd On Ramp jNorthbound Start I Tamarack Avanue jEastbound 1 Intvl. -Lisa LJJSh Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right Pads! Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedaj Total 1-3 Sauthbound Off 11 173 111 ^ 1 1* 299 529 427 312 1269 esrisaM 1835 /N N ^ 356 1393 ^ «9 -> 530 756 735 1 1-5 Southbound On RAMP JUl_-15-2002 10:03 AM TDSSW 6 19 390 S42T 04 Weather Counted by Board « Location Clear t Ory M. Parish DM428 1-5 8/B llampa/Tamarack Traffic Data Service Southwest 977^5 Maine Avanue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Ava Start T'ne 11-5 Southbound Off Ramp jSouthbound I I L«n Thru Rioht Ped« Group 1 Study Mama: 02208011 Site Code : 00208011 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page ; 1 Tamarack Avenua Weatbound 11-5 Southbound On Ramp I Northbound jTamarack Avenue jEastbound Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedsl left Thru lUgh^ IIntvl. Pffjgj T9t«l 07/09/02 16:00] 16:isj 16:30j 16:45j 54 49 54 57 0 61 2 50 1 54 J Sl. 61 48 55 .ii. 119 123 102 125 0| 0 0| 0 OJ 0 21 3j _31 0 92 0 108 0 132 0 112 48 39 41 Jl. Oj 440 2j 427 lj 447 01 <S8 Hour) 214 I 17:00j 17:1S| 17:3oi i7.m 56 61 63 Jll, 220 75 58 60 66 227 469 59 74 56 36 12S na 117 J55_ Qj 0 oj 0 0{ 0 JU e_ 121 I 01 21 2| 0 444 0 140 0 142 0 127 Jl UL 170 37 41 43 _iL. 3j 1772 Oj 497 oj 497 oj 470 Ql 4ffi Hourj 241 I Totali XApr. I X Int. I 455 47.5 12.1 7 0,7 0.1 259 479 50.1 12.B 15 1.5 0.4 225 513 452 987 31.4 68.5 12.1 26.4 0| I 0| 0 4j 1 0 16| - 100.oj 0.4i Peak Hour Analyola By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 07/09/02 to 17:45 on 07/09/02 Time Vol. Pet. Total High Vol. Totel PHF 17:00 241 47,3 509 17:00 I 56 j 133 j 0.956 3 0.5 259 50.8 75 6 1.1 17:00 225 30.2 743 17:15 74 192 0.967 518 69.7 lis 0 0.0 0| 17:00 0 0.0 4 17:15 0 2 0.500 0 0.0 0 0.0 I 100.0| 17:00 0 0.0 703 17:15 0 1S3 0.960 540 984 74.5 26.3 540 76.8 142 163 Oj 1959 I 333 31 3731 25.2 0.2j 8.9 -j 163 23.1 41 Of .01 0| J-UL-15-2002 10:03 AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 05 Weather Counted by Board # Location Clear & Ory «. Pariah D1-142S S/B Ramps/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avanue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Study Name: 02208011 Site Code : 00208011 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page : 2 Group 1 11-5 Southbound Off Ramp iTamarack Avenue jSouthbound |Westbound [t-5 Southbound On Ramp |Tamarack Avenue Northbound IEastbound Start 1 I j jmtvi. JM Ukfill Tlirti Peds[ Left Thru Right Peds| Left Thru Right Pedal Left Thru Right Pedal Total lllll 6 Sauthbouncl Off Ranp 239 241 4 I h 509 777 ^ S40 1488 163 1. 07/09/02 es:aSpn e3:43)(tM 1959 /N N 518 1524 sT 781 395 391 4 1-3 Southbound On Ramp Tanaraok Avvnus JUL-15-2002 10:09 AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 06 Weather Countad by Board « Location Clear & Dry C. Parish 01-1429 1-5 N/B Rampa/Tamarack Ava Traffic Data Service southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-6427 Study Name: 02208020 Site code I 00208020 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page ; 1 11-5 Northbound On Ramp (Southbound Group 1 Start ITamarack Avenue I Westbound 1'™ 1 07/09/02 mru 1 Latt Tnru Hiaht Pads 1 Left Thru Riflht Pedsj j Left Thru RiBht_ JsittS 07:001 0 0 0 1| 0 155 62 0 19 0 36 o| 51 60 0 384 07:151 0 0 0 0 123 56 2 20 0 41 01 49 50 0 345 07:30j 0 0 0 i| 0 162 64 0 12 0 52 Oj 54 88 0 oj 433 P^i^l 9 0 9 41 0 ..._.219 66 0 21 0 73 o| 64 90 0 ol 537 Hourj j 0 0 0 10| 1 0 659 248 2 72 0 202 o| 1 218 288 0 oj 1699 08:00| 0 0 0 1 s| 0 160 53 0 30 0 54 1 52 88 0 oj 442 08!l5| 0 0 0 6| 0 162 65 0 11 0 56 11 31 63 0 oj 395 08:30j 0 0 0 7| 0 160 52 0 27 0 51 1l 35 7S 0 oj 408 Pfii-tfl 0 p 0 21 0 152 47 0 37 1 68 91 46 85 0 01 4J9 Hourj 1 0 0 0 201 1 0 634 217 Oj 105 1 229 2| 1 164 311 0 oj 1683 1 Total 1 0 0 0 301 0 1293 465 2 177 1 431 1 2| 362 599 0 oj 3382 XApr. j - • -100.Oj -73.4 26.4 0.1| 28.9 0.1 70.5 0.3| 38,9 61.0 -- j - X Int. j ---o.sj -38.2 13.7 • 1 5.2 -12.7 •1 11,2 17.7 --j - Peak Hour Analysis By Ent1 re Intarsectlon for the Period: 07:00 on 07/09/02 to 08:45 on 07/09/02 Time j 07:30 1 07:30 07:30 1 07:30 Vol. 1 0 0 0 16| 0 703 24S o| 74 0 235 1| 201 329 0 o| Pet. 1 0,0 0,0 0.0 100.0| 0.0 73.9 26,0 O.oj 23.8 0.0 75.8 0.3j 37.9 62.0 0.0 o.oj Total j 16 1 951 310 1 530 High j 08:15 j 07:45 07:45 1 07:45 Vol. 1 0 0 0 6| 0 219 66 oj 21 0 73 0| 64 90 0 Oj TotaL 1 6 285 94 1 154 PHF j 0.666 j 0.834 0.824 1 0.860 1-5 Northbound Northbound Off Ramp ITamarack Avenue IEastbound Intvl. jrUL-15-2002 10:09 AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 0T Weather : clear ft Dry Counted by : c. Parish Board # : D1-1429 Location : 1-5 N/B Ramps/Tamarack Ave Traffic: Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Study Name: 02208020 Site Code : 00208020 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page : 2 |l-5 Northbound On Ramp jTamarack Avenue Southbound Westbound Group 1 11-5 Northbound Off Ramp jTamarack Avenue Northbound jEastbound Start IIntvl. •Has UUft Thru Rtflht Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Bfdht Pedaj Tot.t 16 I-S Nopthbound On Ranx> 449 4£5 777 801 1307 329 07/09/02 B7!SOan 08:15an 1807 N -t^ 248 1515 <r- 703 964 310 235 74 Noyttibouna Off RaHP TaMarack flu»nue JUL—15—2002 10:10 AM TDSSW 619 390 342T P . 03 Weather : Clear & Dry counted by : A. Gomez Board » : Dl-1429 Location ; 1-5 N/B Ramps/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 11-5 Northbound on Ramp I Southbound jTamarack Avanue [Westbound Group 1 Study Name: 02208021 Site Code ; 00208021 Start Date: 07/09/02 page : 1 (tart 1 1 1 Intvl. Time I Left Ttltii piflht Pedsj Left Thru Right Peds i Left Thru Right Pedal Left Thru Riaht Peds Total 07/09/02 1 16:00| 0 0 0 o| 0 119 40 1 62 0 125 6| 37 114 0 2| 506 16:15j 0 0 0 1| 0 118 50 0 53 1 99 33 126 0 1 466 16:30j 0 0 0 o| 0 100 39 3 SS 0 110 o| 33 148 0 2 493 g Q 0 Qj 0 131 47 0 52 0 142 1| 27 132 0 2| 534 Hourj 1 0 0 0 i| 1 0 468 176 4 225 1 476 n j 1 130 520 0 7j 2019 17i00j 0 0 0 1 2| 0 142 46 0 57 1 124 1 o| 33 158 0 o| 563 17:15j 0 0 0 2| 0 127 46 0 47 0 145 31 26 174 0 oj 17:30( 0 0 0 01 0 127 60 0 46 1 159 0| 32 157 0 oj 562 17f45j 0 Q 0 1| 0 58 2 86 0 175 11 29 169 0 Ol 638 Hourj 1 0 0 0 5| 1 0 522 210 2 236 2 603 1 120 649 0 o| 2353 1 Tota I j 0 0 0 1 61 0 990 386 (>\ 461 3 1079 1 15| 230 1169 0 7| 4372 XApr. 1 ---100.Oj -71.6 27.9 0.4 29.5 0.1 69.2 0.9| 17.5 B1.9 -a.4j - X Int. 1 -- • 0.11 -22.6 8.8 0.1| 10.5 -24.6 0.3 j 5.7 26.7 -o.lj - Peak Hour Analysis By Entfre Intersection for the Period; 16:00 on 07/09/02 to 17:45 on 07/09/02 Time 1 17:00 1 17:00 17:00 j 17:00 Vol. j 0 0 0 0 522 210 2| 236 2 603 120 649 0 o| Pet. j 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.Oj 0.0 71.1 28.6 Q.2j 27.9 0.2 71.3 Q.4| 15.6 84.3 0.0 o.oj Total j 5 1 734 845 1 769 High j 17:00 i 17:00 17:45 17:15 Vol. j 0 0 0 2| 0 142 46 86 0 175 1| 26 174 0 oj Total j 2 1 IBS 262 1 200 PHF j 0,625 1 0.976 0.806 1 0.961 1-5 Northbound Off Ramp Northbound jTamarack Avenua JUL-15-2002 10:10 AM TDSSW 6 19 390 !42T P . 09 Weather : clear & Dry counted by : A, Qontez Board # : Dl-1429 Location : 1-5 N/B Ramps/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Start 11-5 Northbound On Ramp jTamarack Avenue [Southbound jWestbound Group 1 Study Name: 02208021 Sfte Code i 00208021 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page ; 2 11-5 Northbound Off Ramp jTamarack Avenue jNorthbound |Eastbound Intvl. IJ-Sdi Thr^ Riflht Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Rloht Pedsl Left Thru Right Padaj TotaL 1-5 Northbound On Ramp 332 t 337 Tawayaok ttuaniLm 758 «- 120 1527 649 05:45pKi 2333 N 845 210 1986 <— 522 lass <i T f> 236 £03 TaMaraok <iu«nit« Northbound Off Ramp JUL-15-2002 10:10 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 1 0 Weather Counted by Board « Location Clear S Dry R. McGee D1-1426 Adams Street/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA ' 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Start Mm (Adams Street (Southbound jTamarack Avenue I Westbound Group 1 Study Name: 02208030 SIta Coda ; 00208030 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page : i jAdams Street I Northbound 07/09/02 07:00( 07:15( 07:30j 07:451 L_Lfi£t Thru Rioht Pedsl i^fr yhr,, jTamarack Avenue jEastbound ..Riaht Pedsl Left Thru Rioht P«H.( Thru Riplit IIntvl. 0 1 6 JL Hourj I 08:OOj 08:151 08:30j 2 0 6 -L 8 4 19 .10 12 41 0| 0| 0( 1 2 3 A. 0 0 3 3 HOUrj I Total I XApr. j X int, I 0 6 2 9 6 11 J li- is 11,0 0.5 13 25 21,1 1.0 0| I 0! Oj o| JiL 133 108 114 JZfi- 2 1 S 39 80 67,7 3.4 12 533 1 137 2 119 4 138 10 116 0| 0| o| JU- 22 27 33 16 4 1 2 JL 0 1 1 2 4 6 JL. 0] 17 510 29 1043 2,6 94.9 1.2 45.2 0| 113 I Oj IB 0( 31 0( 19 JU 2L. 12 5 2 4 2 3| 5| -2L 14 2 15 JL. 15 2 6 6 5 52 51 76 10 26 2.3 1.1 0| 95 208 67.3 9.0 211 I 2| lOj 7| -21 10 n 12 J2_ 55 263 2| 252 Ij 216 1| 302 II 380 S 7S 4 65 4 74 4 94 13 25 8.0 1.0 19 34 n.o 1.4 45 17 19 18 J!2_ 211 I 421 13.5j i.a| 20 75 9.6 3.2 Peak Hour Analysis By Entfre Intersection for the Period: 07:00 on 07/09/02 to 08:45 on 07/09/02 Peak Hour Analysis By Time I 07:30 Vol. j 6 12 Pet. 1 9.6 19.3 Total 1 « High 1 07:30 Vol. i 6 6 Total 1 31 PHF 1 0.500 44 70.9 19 0| l.0( I 1 0] 07:30 12 2.0 578 07:45 6 .192 0.752 548 94.S 178 18 3.1 Oj I.Oj 1 0| 07:30 113 64.9 174 07:45 31 53 0.820 18 10.3 10 17 9.7 26| 14.9! 07:30 51 12.2 417 07:45 24 121 0.861 511 574 73.7 24.9 303 72.6 76 121 15.5 5.2 60 14.3 5| 1150 I Oj 278 Ij 271 2j 298 JU_JSfi 8| I.Oj 0.3| 3| 0.7j 1153 2303 84 12 JUL-15-2002 10:11 AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 1 1 Weather ; cIeer « Dry Counted by : R, McGee Board « . D1-1426 Location : Adama Street/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 jAdams Street (Southbound Start Group 1 [Tamarack Avanue [Adams Street [westbound Northbound Study Name: 02208030 Site Code : 00208030 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page 1 2 jTamarack Avenue [Eeatbound Tl^ I irft Thn, ,inh, Pe,,( , .f. ,,,,, ,,,, ^ ^^j»ntvl. ' I 1 Tawaytaok Qt**»ttr 703 ^ 1122 RdaMSi StPBfft 4 I k f 149 08:ISaM 1231 N 258 ^ T 904 "fc- 18 ^ 548 326 4- 84 18 ftdawc Strao TaMavtack Au^nue 26 JUL-15-2002 10:11 AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 1 2 Weather : Clear S Ory Counted by : R. McGee Board « I D1-1426 Location : Adams Street/Tamarack Ave Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Start 1 Adams Street (Southbound jTamarack Avenua [Westbound Qroup 1 Study Name: 02208105) Site Coda : 00208031 Stert oate: 07/09/02 Page : 1 [Adama Street (Northbound 1 07/09/02 16;00( 16:15| I6:30j 16:4Sj ThrV Riflht pedsl Left Thru Right Pedg| L^ft Thru Right Hourj i 17:00| 17;15i 17:3oj 7 2 4 JL 5 3 8 _S_ 01 o| o| 11 106 10 106 8 96 8 81 0 3 1 JL 16 8 5 9 _L Hourj 24 6 8 4 23 Totalj 13 39 X Apr. j 13.5 40,6 X Int. I 0.4 1.3 20 44 45.8 1.5 0| I 0| o| o| -OL 7 3 0 JL. 0| 37 391 7 102 9 IQD 11 94 B 107 0| 23 oj 31 0| 23 JiJ 12_ 9 10 4 _ a 12 3 3 5 1 8 10 16 JJL I o| o| oL 96 24 24 38 _2£- 35 72 8.0 2.5 403 794 89,2 27.6 12 24 2.6 0.8 0| 111 31 8 14 6 [Tamarack Avenue (Eastbound I Pedal Left Thru Rloht I 16| 9 103 35 3[ 4 110 35 1[ 12 129 35 IS S 137 36 47 13 13 a 13 25 ( I 3| 21 3| Jd. 33 479 9 ua 14 146 13 146 Jfi ISi. 42 141 37 37 40 _5L. jlntvl. P«l*l T9tlt, f 1( 343 1 j 330 21 339 91 333 47 121 54 593 41 1345 I 1| 369 6j 384 1[ 381 1| 397 207 73 94 50.3 17.7 22.8 7.1 2.5 3,2 37 j 87 9.0j 5.8 1.21 3.0 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for tha Period; 16:00 on 07/09/02 to 17:45 on 07/09/02 Time Vol. Pet, Total High Vol. Total PHF j 17:00 I « I 8.5 I 47 j 17:15 I 3 I 16 j 0.734 23 4B.9 20 42.5 17:00 35 7.7 450 17:45 8 116 0.969 403 89.5 107 12 2.6 17:00 111 52.3 212 17:30 38 57 0.929 42 19.8 47 22.1 12j 5.6| 3| 17:00 54 6.5 S22 17:45 18 224 0.917 1072 72.4 37.2 593 72.1 153 166 307 20.7 10,6 166 20.1 13| O.Bj 0.4j 9| I.Oj 1531 2876 52 It JUL-15-2002 10:12 AM TDSSW 619 390 S42T P . 1 3 Weather ; clear & Dry Counted by ; R, McGee Board # : D1-1426 Location : Adanu Street/Tamarack Ave jAdams Street [Southbound Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-6427 [Tamarack Avenue [Westbound Group 1 Study Name: O2208031 Site Code : 00208031 Start Date: 07/09/02 Page ; 2 Start [Adams Street [Northbound jTamarack Avenue IEastbound \ Uft Thr>^ Rlg>,^ pedsj Hft Thn^ RfBht Pedsi Left Thru Rioht Pedai Laft Thru Right P.^.}'T"!^^,' Adams Street <i I k 133 §7/09/02 5:SOpM 03:45pn 1531 /N N 436 224 42 111 47 fldaws Street 1094 35 -> 644 Tamarack Avenue 12 FEE-lS-2004 03:46 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P.02 Usathar CQuncsd by Board # Location Clear & Ory M.Archibald Dl-2172 Jefferson St Traffic Dara Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 & Tamarack Av study Name; 04055010 site Code i 00055010 Start Dete; 02/17/04 Pege ; 1 Group 1 [Jefferson street [Southbound [Tamarack Avenue [westbound Start Time Laft Thru Riglit Pedsj Left Thru Right Esdi 02/17/04 07i00| 07:15j 07:30| 07:451 Hour[ 1 oaiooj 08!l5j 08i3oj 38 55 74 _iL 224 12 ia 25 1| 1| Jl 72 14 71 63 44 30 24 11 7 4 85 33 22 8 n 21 3| 01 21 Hourj 1 Total I X Apr, 1 X int. I 208 432 65.9 14.7 27 74 51 159 7.7 24.2 1.7 5,4 r\ I 13| 1.9| 0.4[ Peak Hour Analysi s By Entire Intersection for the Period: Time 1 07:15 j 07:15 vol. j 257 30 106 7i 22 393 170 Pet. j 64.2 7.3 26.5 1.7j 3,7 67.0 29.0 Total I 400 i 586 High 1 08:00 j 07:45 vol. 1 " 11 33 2! 6 102 59 Total I 117 [ 167 PHF 0,854 j 0.877 1 0.1 Jefferson Street Northbound Left Thru Right Efidl 14 36 7 125 21 D| 17 9 18 1 j 7 106 4 2) 395 4 94 37 1| 20 6 38 3| 11 132 5 Sj 463 6 102 59 Ol 9 12 39 oj 14 131 .Jt.... 71 482 21 393 131 1[ 60 32 131 6| 36 657 18 14j 1639 5 72 53 oj IB 17 23 o| 11 81 2 S| 4or 8 59 41 o| 9 14 30 o| 8 61 5 lj 331 8 64 35 0[ 10 8 24 2j 5 55 8 sj 2B0 a 54 26 oj .5.... 12 22 lj IS 6 91 ?6? 29 249 155 o| 42 51 99 3| 39 263 21 141 1281 50 642 286 11 102 83 230 9| 75 720 39 281 2920 5,1 65.5 29.2 o.lj 24.0 19.5 54.2 2.1 j 6.7 83.S 4.5 3.2j 1.7 21.9 9.7 •1 3.4 2.a 7.8 0.3| 2.5 24.6 1.3 0.9| on 02/17/04 to 07:15 64 27.8 230 07:30 20 67 0.858 44 19.1 D6:45 on 118 51.3 38 4 1.7 Tamarack Avenua Eastbound [eft Thru Riflht f>J^ 88 02/17/04 07:15 43 8,0 531 07:45 14 157 0.845 4S0 84.7 131 16 22 3.0 4.1 intvl. JTgjii 299 FEE-lS-2004 0S:46 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P . 03 Waather Counted by Board U LOCBtton Clear i Dry M.Archibald •1-2172 Jefferson St & Tamarack Av Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avanue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 290-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Group 1 [Jefferson Street I Southbound Start I Time | Left Thru Right Peds Tamarack Avenue Westbound [Jefferson Street [Northbound Study Name; 040S5010 Sfte code I 0OOSSO10 Start Date: 02/17/04 Page : 2 jTamarack Avenue Eastbound Intvl. JSil Thru Riflht Left Thru Right Peds| Left Thru Right Pedsj Totat •Tefferson Stx>»»t 30 257 106 237 ^ i V t 657 J2/17/04 08 7;ISan ~:QOaM 1747 /N N 298 ^ t 44 4. 68 64 118 Jefferson Street 1411 23 -> 823 Tamaraok Avenue FEE-13-2004 03:47 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P . 04 Weather Counted by Boird tt Location Clear & Dry M.Archibald 01-2172 Jefferson St & Tainarsck Av Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Group 1 Study Name: 04055011 Site Code : 00055011 Start Date: 02/17/04 Page i 1 Jefferson Street Tamarack Avenue Jefferson Street Tamarack Avenue Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start j Intvl, Tima J Left Thru Riaht Peds Left Thru Riaht Peda Left Thru Riflht Laft Thru Rlshi.. Pods Tstal 02/17/04 368 16;00| 59 11 12 1 9 74 61 1 9 14 12 1 19 78 5 2 368 16!l5j 48 7 15 5 12 77 70 0 3 21 19 0 17 71 10 0 375 16:30| 42 13 16 1 24 100 55 0 9 7 18 2 14 66 10 0 377 16:451 51 10 11 0 23 99 63 0 7 12 18 9 19 78 11 0 595 Hour 1 200 41 54 7 68 341 249 1 28 54 67 3 69 293 36 2 1513 17:001 53 11 20 2 21 67 61 0 6 IB 13 0 19 92 21 2 406 17!l5| 46 12 18 1 21 66 63 0 10 13 19 2 11 79 22 2 407 17:30 44 18 12 2 a 72 60 0 7 10 19 0 18 87 15 2 374 17:451 37 9 9 0 23 77 54 p 2 11 13 6 85 15 91 3?? Hour 180 50 59 5 73 304 238 0 25 52 64 8 59 343 71 6 1537 Total] 380 91 113 12 141 645 487 1 53 106 131 11 129 636 107 8 3050 X Apr. 1 63.7 15.2 18.9 2.0 11.0 50.6 38.2 -17.6 35,2 43.5 3.6 14.5 72.3 12.1 0.9 X int. 12.4 2.9 3.7 0.3 4.6 21.1 15.9 -1.7 3.4 4.2 0.3 4.1 20.8 3.5 0.2 Peak Hour Analysis By Enti re Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 02/17/04 to 17:45 on 02/17/04 T1 ina 16:30 16:30 16:30 16:30 64 Vol. 192 46 65 4 89 345 242 0 32 50 68 4 63 315 64 4 Pet. ! 62.5 14.9 21.1 1.3 13.1 51.0 35.7 0,0 20.7 32.4 44.1 2.5 14.1 70.6 14.3 0.8 Total 307 676 154 446 High 17:00 16:30 17:15 17:00 92 21 Vol. 53 11 20 2 24 100 55 0 10 13 19 2 19 92 21 2 Total 86 179 44 134 PHF 0.892 0.944 0.875 0.832 PEE-13-2004 03:47 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P . 05 Weather Counted by Board i Clear I Dry M.Archibald Dl-2172 location i Jefferson St & Tamarack Av Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue study Name: 04055011 Lakeside, CA 92040 Sfte Code : 00055011 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Start Oate; 02/17/04 Page : 2 Group 1 [Jefferson street (Temarack Avenue jjefferson strset |T«tnarack Avenue I Southbound jWestbound [Northbound |Eaatbound Start [[II l'"«^^' Time I Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right P$<;|ff| |.?ft ThfW Riflht Pt<l6| T9tB' Tamaraok Avenue 442 63 888 Jefferson Street 46 333 63 192 ^ i V t 662 02/17/04 1383 N 353 ^ T ^ 199 50 Jefferson Street 1231 ^ 242 4r- 345 ^ 89 575 Tamaraok Avenue FEE-13-2004 0S 43 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P . 06 Weather counted by Board # Location Clear & Ory J .Green Dl-2173 Jefferson St & Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lqkeaide, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-3427 Chinquapin Av Study Name: 04053020 8itt Code i 00055020 Start Date: 02/17/04 Page ; 1 Jefferson Street Southbound [Chinquiipin Avenue Group 1 [Chinquapin Avenue jEastbound Start [ 1 1 Intrvl. Time 1 Left Riaht Pedsl Thru Riflht Pedsl Left Thru Pedsl Tfllai 02/17/04[ 1 1 81 07:00j 12 1 0[ 10 41 0[ 13 4 0 81 07il5[ 10 2 01 10 36 0| 7 14 0 79 D7:30| 16 0 0| 1[ 8 48 21 12 7 0 93 07:451 11 2 0| 1[ 9 46 o| 11 14 91 94 Hour I 49 5 11 1 37 171 2| 1 43 39 Oj 347 08:00| 12 3 i 01 5 41 1 1| 12 4 0 78 08;isj 17 3 ll r 39 1| 12 3 0! 83 08:301 15 4 o| 6 30 2| 4 3 0 64 08:451 13 5 o| , i_ 33 91 5 3 9 62 Hourj 57 15 1l 1 21 143 1 33 13 0 287 Totalj 106 20 1 2| 53 314 1 6| 76 52 0 634 X Apr. 1 82.8 15.6 1.5| 15.3 83.0 1.5[ 59.3 40.6 • X Int. j 16.7 3.1 0.3{ 9.1 49.5 0.9[ 11.9 8.2 Peak Hour Analysis By Enti re intersection for the Pariod: 07:00 on 02/17/04 to 08:45 on Time 1 07:30 1 07:30 I 07:30 vol, 1 56 8 21 29 174 47 28 0 Pet, 1 84.8 12.1 3.0[ 14.0 84.0 1.9[ 62.6 37.3 0.0 Total 1 66 1 207 1 75 High 1 08:15 1 07:30 1 07:45 Vol. i 17 3 1| 3 48 2| 11 14 0 Total j 21 1 58 1 25 PHP j 0.785 1 0.892 1 0.750 FEE-lS-2004 03:43 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P . 07 Usathar Counted by Board # Location Clear £ Dry J.Green Dl-2173 Jefferson St & Chinquapin Av Traffic Data Service southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Group 1 [Jefferson Streat [chinquapin Avenue 1 chinquapin Avenue [Southbound [Westbound 1 jEastbound Start j [Westbound 1 j jIntrvl. Time 1 Left Riaht .. Pedsl Thru Rioht Pedsl Left Thru Pedsl Total llll Study Nairn: 04055020 Sfte Code : 00055020 Start Date: 02/17/04 Paga ; 2 IJefferson Street 2 8 221 36 ^ k '^ 287 Chin«»ua»Hn Avenue 37 47 112 28 "-^ 02/17/04 348 /N N Chinquapin Avenue FEB-lS-2004 03:43 AM TDSSW 619 390 3427 P . 03 Weather : Clear £ Ory Counted by : J.Green Board # ! 01-2173 Location :Jefferson St & Chinquapin Av Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Group 1 Study Name: 04055021 Site code : 000S5021 Start Date: 02/17/04 Page : 1 Jefferson Street chinquapin Avenue [Chinquapin Avenua Southbound Westbound [Eastbound Start 1 Intrvl. Timo Left Right Peda Thru Right Pedsj Left Thru Pedsl Total 02/17/04 1 72 16:00 22 3 0 4 32 o| 7 4 0 72 16:15 24 4 0 3 29 o| 11 6 0 77 16:30 36 a 0 3 25 Oj 4 7 0 63 16:45 30 5 0 4 32 o| 4 6 81 Hour 112 20 0 14 116 o| 1 26 23 0 313 17:00 40 9 1 0 28 1 1l 6 8 0 92 17:15 44 4 0 7 34 0| 12 11 0 112 17:30 31 5 1 9 27 o| 10 6 0 89 17:45 32 10 ol 3 20 9[ 5 9 0 84 Hour 147 27 2 24 109 11 1 33 34 0 377 Total 259 47 2 38 227 1 M 59 57 0 690 X Apr. 84.0 15.2 0.6 14.2 85.3 0.3| 50.8 49.1 - • X int. 37.5 6.8 0.2 5.5 32.8 0.1[ 8.5 8.2 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire intersection for the Period; 16:00 on 02/17/04 to 17:45 on Time 17:00 17:00 1 17:00 Vol. 147 27 2 24 109 11 33 34 0 Pet. 83.5 15.3 1.1 1 17.9 81.3 0.71 49.2 50.7 0.0 Total 1 176 134 1 67 High 17:00 17:15 [ 17:15 Vol. 1 40 8 1 7 34 Ol 12 11 0 Total 49 i 23 PHF 0.897 I 0.817 1 0.728 FEE-13-2004 03:49 AM TDSSW 619 390 S427 P . 09 Weather counted by Board it Location Start Traffic Data Service Southwest Clear & Dry 9773 Maine Avenue J.Sreen Lakeside, CA 92040 Dl-2173 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Jefferson St & Chinquapin Av Qroup 1 [Jefferson Street jChlnquapin Avenue jchlnquapin Avenue [Southbound Westbound [Eastbound Tiine . I Left aMi P'fgj Thru BMt EfidsJ iSil. Thru (Intrvl. Pedsj Total Study Name: 04055O21 Site Code : 00055021 Start Date: 02/17/04 Pago : 2 Jefferson Street " 147 318 Chinquapin Avenue 51 33 118 34 82/17/04 5:Bgpn 03:45pn 377 /N N •t- 109 315 34 181 Chinquapin Avenu* Fron: Martin A. Parish 619-390-8427 To: Chris Mendiara Date: 7/14/2002 Time: 10:08:28 PIVI Page 2 of 5 WeeklyVehicle-138 Page Traffic Data Service Southwest Weeklv Vehicle Counts WeeklvVehicle-138 DATASETS: Site: Direction: Survey Duration: File: Identifier: Algorithm: PROFILE: Filter time: Included classes: Speed range: Direction: Headway: Scheme: Name: Method: Units: In profile: [20801] Locust Ave Btwn Harrison Street & Adams Street 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A., Lane: 0 15:17 Mon 08 Jul 2002 to 21:40 Sun 14 Jul 2002 Z:\mcdata\LLG\2002\208\2080115JUL20Q2.ECO (Base) A6462Z28 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Factory default 00:00 Tue 09 Jul 2002 to 00:00 Sat 13 Jul 2002 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 0-100 mph. West (bound) All Scheme F99 Factory default profile Vehicle classification Non-Metric (ft, mi, f/s, mph, Ib, ton) 21 Vehicles Westbound From: Martin A. Parish 619-390-8427 To: Chris Mendiara Date: 7/14/2002 Time: 10:08:28 PM Page 3 of 5 WeeklyVehicle-138 Page Report Id: Site ID: Location: Filter time: Scheme: Filter: Weeklv Vehicle Counts WeeklyVehicle-138 20801.OWE Locust Ave Btwn Harrison Street & Adams Street 00:00 Tue 09 Jul 2002 to 00:00 Sat 13 Jul 2002 Scheme F99 CL(1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13) DR(W) SP(0,100) HW(all) Westbound Date MON 08 Jul 02 TtlE 09 JixL WED THU FRI SAT SUN 10 Jul 11 Jul 12 Jul 13 Jul 14 Jul AVERAGES -DAY 7-DAY Hour period 0000-0100 •A- 0100-0200 •i- 0200-0300 + 0300-0400 0400-0500 0500-0600 0600-0700 ir 0700-0800 + 0800-0900 0900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1300-1400 1400-1500 + 1500-1600 4- 1600-1700 4- 1700-1800 4- 1800-1900 4- 1900-2000 4- 2000-2100 2100-2200 4- 2200-2300 4- 2300-2400 4- TOTALS 12Hr 7-19 4- 16Hr 6-22 4- 18Hr 6-24 4- 24Hr 0-24 4- AM HR 4- PEAK 4- PM HR 4- PEAK 4- * - No data. 0 0 0 0 -Jf 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Jr 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •A-* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •Jr * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •Jr * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1< 0 + * 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1< 4-* 1 0 3< 0 3< 0 0 0 0 -k ^ 1 0 0 0 0 0< 0< 0 0 -ir ^ 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 + * 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 * 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 2< * 1 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 •ir + 1 0 0 0 0 0 3< 1 0 -ir 1 1 0 1 0 2< 0 1 1 + * 1 1 0< 1 0< 1 0 1 0 •Jr * 1 0 5 0 5 0 0 2< 0 -i-1 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 0 -Jr 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 •Jr * 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 -Jr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •A-1 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 5 1100 0 1700 2 3 3 3 3 1100 0 1600 3 0800 1 1900 2 4 4 4 5 0900 1 1400 2 4 . 0 5.0 5.0 5.3 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 From: Martin A. Parish 619-390-8427 To: Chris Mendiara Date://14/2UU2 lime: 1U:UH:28 PM page 4 at b WeeklyVehicle-138 Page Traffic Data Service Southwest Weeklv Vehicle Counts WeeklvVehlcl6-138 DATASETS: Site: Direction: Survey Duration: File: Identifier: Algorithm: PROFILE: Filter time: Included classes: Speed range: Direction: Headway: Scheme: Name: Method: Units: In profile: [20801] Locust Ave Btwn Harrison Street & Adams Street 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A., Lane: 0 15:17 Mon 08 Jul 2002 to 21:40 Sun 14 Jul 2002 Z:\mcdata\LLG\2002\208\2080115JUL2002.EC0 (Base) A6462Z28 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Factory default 00:00 Tue 09 Jul 2002 to 00:00 Sat 13 Jul 2002 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 0-100 mph. East (bound) All Scheme F99 Factory default profile Vehicle classification Non-Metric (ft, mi, f/s, mph, Ib, ton) 27 Vehicles Eastbound From: Mart:in A. Parish 619-390-8427 To: Chris Mendiara Date: 7/14/2002 Time: 10:08:28 PM Page 5 of 5 Weeklv Vehicle Counts WeeklyVehlcle-138 Page Report Id: Site ID: Location: Filter time: Scheme: Filter: WeeklyVehicle-138 20801.OWE Locust Ave Btwn Harrison Street & Adams Street 00:00 Tue 09 Jul 2002 to 00:00 Sat 13 Jul 2002 Scheme F99 CL(1 23456789 10 11 12 13)DR{E) SP(0,100) HW(all) Eastbound MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN Date 08 Jul 02 09 Jul 10 Jul 11 Jul 12 Jul 13 Jul 14 Jiil Hour period 0 1 0000-0100 4-1 0 0 0 * * 1 0100-0200 4-0 0 0 0 4-* 1 0200-0300 4-0 0 0 0 4-* 1 0300-0400 4-0 0 0 0 •4 1 0400-0500 4-0 0 0 0 4-* 1 0500-0600 4-0 0 0 0 4-* 1 0600-0700 4-0 0 1 0 4 * 1 0700-0800 4-1 0 0 0 4-* 1 0800-0900 4-0 0 0 0 4r * 1 0900-1000 4 0 0 1 2< 4-^ 1 1000-1100 4-0 0 0 0 4-^ ! 1100-1200 4-1< 1< 1< 0 4 1 1200-1300 4-0 1 0 1 4-* 1 1300-1400 4-1 0 0 1 4r 4: 1 1400-1500 4-0 1 1 0 4-* 1 1500-1600 4-1 0 0 1 4 * 1 1600-1700 4-0 1 0 1 4-* 1 1700-1800 4-1 0 2< 1 4-•Jr 1 1800-1900 4 0 0 0 0 4-1 1900-2000 4-0 1< 0 2< 4-* 1 2000-2100 •4 0 0 0 0 4-* 1 2100-2200 4-1< 0 0 0 4-* 1 2200-2300 4-0 0 0 0 4-* 1 2300-2400 4-0 0 0 0 4-* 1 1 TOTALS 1 12Hr 7-19 4-5 4 5 7 4- 1 * 1 16Hr 6-22 4 6 5 6 9 4-1 IBHr 6-24 •4 6 5 6 9 4-* 1 24Hr 0-24 4-7 5 6 9 4-1 1 AM HR 4-1100 1100 1100 0900 4-* 1 PEAK 4-1 1 1 2 4-1 1 PM HR 4-2100 1900 1700 1900 * 1 PEAK 4-1 1 2 2 4-* 1 AVERAGES 5 -DAY 7 -DAI 0 . 3 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 o' 0 0 8< 0 8< 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 0< 1 0< 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 5 3 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 8 6 8 No data. APPENDIXB INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet Intersection Location: TAMARACK AVE/JEFFERSON ST Analyzed by: Doug Talbott Date and Time of Data: 2/18/2004 City: Carlsbad Alternative: EXISTING + PROJECT PM PEAK Project: 3-02-1205 1; Movement EBL EBT i EBR ! WBL i WBT I WBR i NBL i NBT i NBR Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet Intersection Location: 1-15 NB/TAMARACK AVE Analyzed by: Doug Talbott Date and Time of Data: 2/17/2004 City: Carlsbad Alternative: E P PM PEAK Project: 3-02-1205 43 Combined Right Turns 44|Adjusted Reference Time 45|Cross Through Direction 46 j Cross Th rough Adj Ref Time 47|Oncoming Left Direction Oncoming Left Adj Ref Tjme Combined Intersection CapacityJUtilization Level Of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet Intersection Location: ADAMS ST /TAMARACK AVE Analyzed by: Doug Talbott Date and Time of Data: 7/11/2002 City: Carlsbad Alternative: EXISTING AM PEAK Project: 3-02-1205 Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet Intersection Location: ADAMS ST.nAMARACK AVE City: Carlsbad Analyzed by: Doug Talbott Date and Time of Data: 2/17/2004 Alternative: E + P AM PEAK Project: 3-02-1205 Summary EastWest North South 39 Protected Option 47.1 NA 40 Permitted Option 39.1 23.0 41 Split Option 61.8 28,7 42 Minimum 39.1 23.0 43 Combined 62.2 Rigfit Turns EBR WBR NBR SBR 44 j Adiusted Reference Time 451 Cross Through Direction 8.9 NBT 8.0 SBT 8.0 WBT 8.0 EBT 46 i Cross Through Adj Ref Time 16.4 12.3 39.1 22.7 47 j Oncoming Left Direction WBL EBL SBL NBL 481 Oncoming Left Adi Ref Time 8.0 8.0 12.3 16.4 49 Combined 33,3 28.3 59.4 47.1 50 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% 51 Level Of Service B Revision 00.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheet Intersection Location: Analyzed by: Date and Time of Data: 2/17/2004 ADAMS ST./TAMARACK AVE Doug Talbott City: Carlsbad Alternative: E -i- P PM PEAK Project: 3-02-1205 1 Movement J r X. t 1 1 ^ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR _SBL SBT SBR 2 3 Lanes I T 1 anA {\ffn\ 1 • ves 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vor ^ 1 '{ ^ 1 4 Volume 54 593 195 1 1 Yes 39 403 12 Lll Yes 118 42 49 bd Yes 4 23 20 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.9 09 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 09 09 09 09 09 09 Summary EastWest North South 39 Protected Option 48,6 NA 40 Pennitted Option NA 26,1 41 Split Option 70,4 30,0 42 Minimum 48,6 26,1 43 Combined 74,7 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR SBR 44 Adjusted Reference Time 18,2 8,0 8,0 8.0 45 Cross Through Direction NBT SBT WBT EBT 46 Cross Through Adj Ref Time 18,6 11,4 29,8 40,6 47 Oncoming Left Direction WBL EBL SBL NBL 48 Oncoming Left Adj Ref Time 8,0 8,0 11.4 18,6 49 Combined 44.8 27,4 49,2 67,2 50 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% 51 Level Of Service C Revision 00.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 2000 Introduction The Intersection Capacity Utilization provides a straight forward method to calculate an intersection's level of service. The method simply takes a sum of the critical movements volume to saturation flow rates. ICU is an ideal solution for traffic planning purposes. Its intended applications are for traffic impact studies, future roadway design, and congestion management programs. The ICU is not intended for operations or signal timing design. The primary output from ICU is analogous to the intersection volume to capacity ratio. Other methods such as Synchro and the HCM should be used for operations and signal timing design. The ICU does not provide a complete picture of intersection performance, but it does provide a clear view of the intersection's volume related to its capacity. Compared to delay based calculations, the ICU is relatively easy to calculate and does not include the opportunities for guessing and manipulation found in the HCM. Changes in ICU 2000 ICU was originally proposed by Robert Crommelin in 1974 in a paper entitled "Employing Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Level of Service". The ICU method is used in Southem Califomia for the congestion management programs and is used in traffic impact studies. A similar method called CLV is used in Maryland for similar applications. The ICU 2000 extends and improves upon the ICU method. The changes to ICU 2000 over the original ICU and CLV include: • Uses the same saturated flow rates, lost time, and volume adjustments as the HCM 1997 and the HCM 2000 thus generating comparable results to the HCM. • Includes instructions and procedures for modeling permitted left tums and shared left- through lanes. These intersections were not specifically addressed in the original ICU. • Includes consideration of minimmn green times, pedestrian timing requirements, and pedestrian interference. • Improved logic for right tums. ICU 2000 accoimts for free rights, overlapping right turn phases, and right tums on red. Overview of calculation The primary calculation for ICU 2000 is to calculate a Reference Time for each movement. The Reference Time is the amoimt of time required for each movement at 100% capacity. The reference time is volume times Reference Cycle Length divided by saturated flow rate. The Reference Time must be greater than the Minimum Green time and is added to the Lost Time to give the Adjusted Reference Time. The ICU is the sum of the critical Adjusted Reference Times divided by the Reference Cycle Length. The Reference Cycle Length is a fixed input value, the default is 120 s. There are fitrther adjustments to account for pedestrian time and pedestrian interference. There are three alternate methods: protected, split, and permitted. The permitted option is only allowed for low volume intersections. The protected option is not available when there is a shared left-through lane. The split option is always available. ICU 2000 Compared to the HCM Method For some applications, ICU 2000 provides a better methodology than the HCM signalized intersection methods. The primary benefits of the ICU are that it is easy to calculate and gives answers with a higher degree of certainty. The ICU gives a clear picture of how much extra capacity an intersection has. The HCM's primary MOE is delay. Delay based models are appropriate for designing signal timing plans and for evaluating operations. Delay is a value that can be measured and explained to the public. HCM ICU 2000 Primary MOE Delay Volume to Capacity Applications, primary Operations, Signal Timing Planning, Impact Studies, Roadway Design Applications, secondary Planning, Impact Studies, Roadway Design Pages of Instmctions 170 11 Pages of Worksheets 8 1 Available as spreadsheet No Yes Can be calculated by hand No Yes Single Correct Answer No Yes Cost of software $500 Free Considers Pedestrian Timing No Yes Typical Accuracy +-30% +-10% Requires Optimized Timing Yes No Requires Optimized Phasing Yes No Requires Estimating Actuated Signal operation Yes No Requires Estimating Effects of coordination Yes No Complex Permitted Left Tum Analysis Yes No Tme Measure of Maximum Capacity No Yes Accounts for Minimum Green times No Yes One major advantage ofthe ICU is simpUcity. The HCM signalized operations method requires up to 10 worksheets and the chapters related to signals contain over 170 pages. A longer procedure requires more time to use and more time to review. The longer procedure also opens the possibility to more mistakes and less chance of finding mistakes during review. The longer procedure is also more difficult to implement in soflware. The current HCS, version 3.1b still contains calculation errors after 12 months of release and 2 interim updates. A simpler method will likely lead to more correct soflware implementations. Another advantage of the ICU is that it is simple enough to be used by hand or with a spreadsheet. This allows firee and easy access to the methods and their underlying calculations. The ICU explicitly accoimts for pedestrians both through interference adjustments and through required timings. The HCM does not explicitly require that timing plans contain enough time for pedestrians. The HCM method requires the user to estimate the actuated green times and the platoon factors. Small changes to these input values can make a big difference on the results. A skilled HCM user can manipulate these input values to give the desired result. One criticism of the ICU is that the resulting timing plans are inefficient, and a timing plan optimized for delay is more efficient. The ICU is not intended to be used for operations or timing plan design. The Reference Times are not intended to be used as timing plans, but only as an aid in calculating ICU at a predetermined Reference Cycle Length. There are advantages to not calculating and the actual timing plan. It is not necessary to optimize timing and phase sequence. It is also not necessary to have a long, complicated permitted left tum procedure. Accuracy of Calculations v/c can be calculated with more accuracy than delay. The following illustrates how inaccuracies can compound in an ICU or delay analysis, the numbers in parenthesis are the typical level of certainty: Volume and Capacity Components hiput Volume (+-5%) Ideal Flow Rate (+-5%) Saturated Flow Adjustments (+-5%) Lane Utilization (+-5%) Lost Time (+-5%) Combined Uncertainty for Volume and Capacity (-(--11%) Delay Uncertainty Components Volume to Capacity Multiplier (lx to 3x) Permitted Left Tum Factor Calculation (+-10%) Platoon Factor (+-10%) Choice of Green Times (+-10%) Combined Uncertainty for Delay (+-37%) The uncertainty values can be though of as a standard deviation between the measured value and the tme value. Uncertainties are combined using root-sum-squared. Some of the uncertainty arises fi-om variations in field measurements. Other variations arise because the intemal methods are not well calibrated for all traffic conditions. The first combined value represents the typical uncertainties in a volume-to-capacity calculation and is representative of the level of accuracy expected in an ICU calculation. The second combined value represents some of the additional uncertainties found in an HCM delay calculation. When v/c is near 1, a 1% change in v/c can cause a 3% change in the resulting delay; the volume to capacity uncertainty is multiplied by 3 for this reason. The formulas for permitted left tum factors have been found to be inaccurate in some cases, adding additional uncertainty to the delay equation. The choice of platoon factor can also have a big impact on delay. In conclusion, the ICU has a higher level of certainty because the calculation has fewer steps and fewer input values. An accurate method is important for appUcations such as roadway design and impact studies, because the resulting decisions involve large sums of money. Calculation Methods This section contains line by line instmctions for filling out the ICU Worksheet. Formula symbols are listed on the line they are defined in brackets. In the next paragraph, n is defined as the symbol for number of lanes. 2. Number of Lanes: {n} Enter the number of lanes for each movement Any type of shared lane counts as a through lane. If the lane geometry is L LT T TR, enter 1 left, 3 through, and 0 right lanes. A LR lane should be entered as a through lane. The T, L, and R suffixes can be used to indicate left, through, or right. If a formula contains the symbol "nT", the data is found on line 2, through column. A full movement name such as "NBL" can be used as a suffix to specify a specific movement. Inputs 1. Movement names: 1 column for each of the 12 basic directions. NBL is northbound left. EBR is eastbound right. 2. Number of Lanes: {n} Enter the number of lanes for each movement. Any type of shared lane counts as a through lane. If the lane geometry is L LT T TR, enter 1 left, 3 through, and 0 right lanes. A LR lane should be entered as a through lane. 3. Left Through Lane: Enter a "y" if there is a shared left-through lane. 4. Volume: {V} Enter the number of vehicles per hour for each movement. If you have a 15 minute count, multiply the volumes by 4 to get hourly flow rates. 5. Peak Hour Factor: {PHF} Peak Hour Factor = v60 / (vl5*4), where v60 is the 60 minute volume and vl5 is the peak 15 minute volume. Use 0.9 unless better data is available. Ifthe volume in line 3 is based on a peak 15 minute count, use 1.0. 6. Pedestrians: {ped} Enter the number of pedestrians per hour. Enter the number of pedestrians on the link to the right of the movement. These pedestrians vdll conflict with right tums and walk on the phase associated with this legs through movement. 7. Pedestrian Button: Enter "y" if this signal is actuated and there is a push button for these pedestrians. 8. Pedestrian Timing Required: {tPed} Enter the time required for pedestrians to cross the leg to the right. This time includes walk and flashing-don't-waUc, but not yellow or all-red time. Enter zero if pedestrians are prohibited for this movement or this is an area with no pedestrians. 9. Free Right: Enter "y" if there is a right tum lane and right tums can move at all times into their own departure lane. 10. Ideal Flow: {i} This is the ideal saturated flow rate of vehicles. By default use 1900. For a central business district use 1710. Saturated flow rates can vary greatly by type of area and by geographic region. It is recommended that local saturated flow rates be measured and these used instead. 11. Lost Time: {tL} Enter 4 seconds for lost time. If this is a very large intersection, such as a single-point urban interchange, use a larger value for lost time. Lost time must be greater or equal to the travel time through the intersection. Tuming traffic may have a longer travel time due to their slower tuming speeds. 12. Reference Cycle Length: {CL} This is an input value, but is not normally modified. The default value is 120 s. An agency may decide to use an altemate value that matches their maximum desired cycle length. However, an agency should standardize on a single value. This is the end of the data inputs. If using the spreadsheet, you are now finished and the remaining items are calculated automatically. Calculations Lines 13 to 51 represent calculations. Normally these are performed automatically with a spreadsheet or soflware. These instractions give a step-by-step reference to the ICU 2000 methods and can be used for creating a software or spreadsheet implementation. 13. Adjusted Volume: {v} This is the volume adjusted for peak hour factor. v = V/PHF 14. Volume Combined: {vC} This is the volume assigned to lane groups. vCT = vT + vR* + vL** vCL = vL** vCR - vR* *vR is added to vCT when nR = 0, otherwise vR is added to vCR. ** vL is added to vCT when there is a left-through lane (Line 3 = yes), otherwise vL is added to vCL. 15. Volume Separate Left: {vS} vST = vT + vR* vSL = vL vSR = vR* *vR is added to vCT when nR = 0, otherwise vR is added to vCR. 16. Lane Utilization Factor: {fLU} This factor adjusts the saturated flow rate when there are 2 or more lanes. This adjustment accounts for the unequal use of lanes. Number of Lanes Left Through Right 1 1 1 1 2 0.971 0.952 0.885 3 or more 0.971 0.908 0.885 Lane Utilization Factor Table 17. Turning Factor Adjustment {ff} This factor adjusts for the number of right or left tumers in the lane group. fTL = 0.95 flR = 0.85 fFT = (1 - 0.15 * (vR - vCR)/vCT) * (1 - 0.05 * (vL - vCL)/vCT) 18. Saturated Flow Rate Combined: {s} This is the adjusted satiirated flow rate, s = i * n * fl:.U * fT If there is a shared Left-Through lane (line 3), count tiie left lanes in the through group and the leave the left saturated flow rate blank. sT = i * (nT + nL) * ALU * fT sL = 0 19. Saturated Flow Rate Separate: {sC} This is used with a shared left-through lane. This value will be used for some capacity checks in the permitted and split options. sC = i * n * ALU * fT If there is a shared Left-Through lane (line 3), add one to the number of left lanes. Also include the shared lane in the through flow rate. sCT = i * nT * fLU * (1 - 0.05 * (vR - vSR) / vST) sCL = i*(nL+l)*fLU*fr 20. Minimum Green Time: {tMin} This is the minimum time a signal can show green. Enter 4 seconds for all movements. 21. Pedestrian Interference Time: {intf} This is the time tiiat traffic will be blocked by pedestrians. For right tums use the formula: 22. intfil = 24 - 8 * e^(-ped/2*l 12/3600) - 16 * e'^(-ped/2*4/3600) For through movements with no right lanes, use the formula: intfT = [24 - 8 * e^(-ped/2*l 12/3600) - 16 * e^(-ped/2*4/3600)] * vR/vC Otherwise, Pedestrian Interference time is zero. Pedestrians can cause up to 24 seconds of delay per cycle. Four seconds each for pedestrians starting immediately firom the near and far sides or 8 seconds total. And up to 16 seconds for pedestrians starting within the first 8 seconds of green time in either direction. The 8 * e^(-ped/2* 112/3600) term represents the pedestrians starting immediately. Pedestrians are divided by 2 for two directions. 112/3600 represents 112 seconds of pedestrians, the reference cycle less the first 8 seconds. The 8 represents 4 seconds of interference per direction times two directions. The 16 * e^(-ped/2*4/3600) term represents the pedestrians starting during the first 8 seconds, but not immediately. Pedestrians are divided by 2 for two directions. 4/3600 represents 4 seconds of pedestrians. The 16 represents 4 seconds of interference per direction multiplied by two directions multiplied by two-4 second intervals. This term will be less than 1 second when ped is less than 120. 23. Pedestrian Frequency: {freq} This is the probability of a pedestrian activating the pedestrian timings on any cycle. If pedestrians is 0 (line 6), enter 0. If there is no push button (line 7), enter 1. Otherwise use this formula: freq = 1 - e^(-ped*120/3600) Protected Option Lines 22 to 24 calculate the ICU using protected phasing. This option is not available if a shared left-tiurough lane is present in either of the opposing directions. If your intersection has a left-through lane, you might try reclassifying it as a exclusive left lane and/or an exclusive through lane to evaluate the intersection using protected phasing. The protected phasing will usually be the most efficient operation, except at low volume intersections. 24. Protected Option Allowed: The protected option is allowed for northbound and southbound, when neither of these movements has a left-through lane. The protected option is allowed for eastbound and westbound, when neither of these movements has a left-through lane (line 3). Mark Yes or No for the north-south movements and then the east-west movements. Leave lines 23 and 24 blank for the movements where protected phasing is not allowed. 25. Reference Time: {tRef} This is the time required to serve the adjusted volume at 100%) sahiration. tRef=vC/s*CL + intf If there is no volume for this movement, leave this entry and row 25 blank. 26. Adjusted Reference Time: {tAdj} This is the reference time adjusted for minimums, pedestrians, and lost time. For through movements, use the formula: tAdj = tLost + max(tMin, tRef) * (1 - freq) + max(tMin, tRef, tPed) * freq Pedestrian times are not needed for left and right movements, use this formula for left and right movements: tAdj = tLost + max(tMin, tRef) Permitted Option Lines 26 to 33 calculate the ICU using a permitted left tum option. Traditionally the ICU method did not allow for permitted left tums because it is taking a sum of conflicting movements. However using the protected option requires a dedicated left lane. Many intersections in urban areas have shared left-through lanes that are analyzed too harshly with the protected or spUt options. The permitted option is only allowed when the left tum volume is less than 60 vph or the oncoming through volume is less than 120 vph. This is to allow analysis using existing geometry when there are few conflicts for permitted left tums. Ifthe volume exceeds these values, it is considered that the intersection would operate as efficientiy using protected or split phasing. It may be necessary to reclassify a left- through lane as a left only lane for the analysis. More infonnation about permitted left tums is available m the discussion section. 27. Permitted Option Allowed: The permitted option is allowed for northbound and southbound, when either left traffic is less than 60 vph or the oncoming through traffic is less than 120 vph. This condition must be met for both sets of conflicting movements for northbound and southbound for permitted analysis to be allowed. Mark Yes or No for the north-south movements and then the east-west movements. Leave lines 27 and 33 blank for the movements where permitted phasing is not allowed. 28. Adjusted Saturation A: {sA} This is tiie saturation flow rate of the through and shared lanes adjusted for blocking by left tum traffic. If there is a left-through shared lane (line 3), enter: sA-s* (nT - vL/60) /nT With no shared lane: sA = s If vL is greater than 60, enter "NA". 29. Reference Time A: {tRefA} This is the reference time for tiie through movement, when the shared lane is blocked by less than 60 vph of left traffic. If vL is greater than 60, enter "NA". Otherwise enter: tRefA = vST * CL / sA + intf 30. Adjusted Saturation B: {sB} This is the saturated flow rate of the through lanes without the shared lane. If there is a shared left-through lane, enter: sBT = sT * (nT - 1) / nT. With no shared lane: sBT = sT 31. Reference Time B: {tReflB} If oncoming through traffic is greater than 120 vph, enter "NA". Otherwise enter: tReffl = 8 + (vST - 8 * sBT / CL) * CL / sS + intf This formula assumes that the left lane will be blocked for 8 seconds to account for the oncoming traffic of up to 120 vph. 32. Reference Time Lefts: {tRefBL} If oncoming through tiaffic is greater than 120 vph, enter "NA". Otherwise enter: tRefflL = 8 + vLS * CL / sS 8 seconds are added to account for the oncoming traffic of up to 120 vph. 33. Reference Time: {tRefPerm} Use the minimum of Reference Time A and the maximum of (Reference Time B and Reference Line Lefts). tRefPerm = min(tRefA, max(tRefBL, tRefB) 34. Adjusted Reference Time: {tAdjPerm} This is the reference time adjusted for minimums, pedestrians, and lost time. Use the formula: tAdjPerm = tLost + max(tMin, tRefPerm) * (1 - freq) + max(tMin, tReflPerm, tPed) * freq 10 Split Option Lines 34 to 38 calculate the ICU using split phasing. The split option is always allowed, in some cases the split option is the only option allowed. The split option analyzes the lanes combined and also checks the left and through fraffic independently. 35. Reference Time Combined: {tRefC} Use tiie formula: tReflC = vC / s * CL + intf 36. Reference Time By Movement: {tRefS} Use the formula: tRefS = vS / sS * CL + intf 37. Reference Time: {tRefSplit} Use the maximum of Reference Time Combined and the two Reference Times by Movement. tRefSplit = max (tRefC, tRefST, tRefSL) 38. Adjusted Reference Time: {tAdjSplit} This is the reference time adjusted for minimums, pedestrians, and lost time. Use the formula: tAdjPerm = tLost + max(tMin, tRefSplit) * (1 - freq) + max(tMin, tRefSplit, tPed) * freq Summary This section summarizes and combines the required times for left and through traffic by approach pairs. The best solution is found for each approach pair and combined. 39. Protected Option: {tProt} Add the Adjusted Reference Times from line 24, if computed. tProtNS = max(tAdjNBL + tAdjSBT, tAdjSBL + tAdjNBT) tProtEW = max(tAdjEBL + tAdjWBT, tAdjWBL + tAdjEBT) 40. Permitted Option: {tPerm} Take the maximum Adjusted Reference Times from line 32, if computed. tPermNS = max(tAdjPerm>reT, tAdjPermSBT) tPermEW = max(tAdjPeraiEBT, tAdjPermWBT) Enter NA, if permitted is not allowed for the approach pair. 41. Split Option: {tSplit} Take the sum of the Adjusted Reference Times from line 37. tSphtNS = tAdjSplitNBT + tAdjSplitSBT tSplitEW = tAdjSplitEBT + tAdjSpUtWBT 42. Minimum: For each approach pair, take the minimum combined adjusted reference time. For each column, take the minimum value from lines 39 to 41. 11 43. Combined: {tCombined} Add the two columns from line 42. Right Turns Right tums from exclusive lanes are calculated by a separate calculation. This accoimts for free rights, overlapping right turn phases, and right tums on red. 44. Adjusted Reference Time: {tAdj} Copy the Adjusted Reference Times for right tums from line 24. For approaches with 0 exclusive right lanes, this value will be 0. 45. Cross Through Direction: This is the direction from the left side that will merge with the right tiims. Enter NBT, SBT, WBT, EBT for EBR, WBR, NBR, and SBR. 46. Cross Through Adjusted Reference Time: {tAdjMinT} Enter the minimum Adjusted Reference Times for the cross through movement from lines 24, 32, and 37. tAdjMinT = min(tAdj, tAdjPerm, tAdjSplit) 47. Oncoming Left Direction: This is the oncoming direction from which left traffic will merge with the right tums. Enter WBL, EBL, SBL, and NBL for EBR, WBR, NBR, and SBR. 48. Oncoming Adjusted Left Reference Time: {tAdjMinL} Enter the minimum Adjusted Reference Times for the cross left movement from lines 24, and 37. Do not include the permitted time for oncoming left. The split reference time for left movements should be the same as for through movements. tAdjMinL = min(tAdj, tAdjSplit) 49. Combined: If this movement is a free right, copy line 43. Otherwise add lines 43, 45, and 47. 12 Final Calculations 50. Intersection Capacity Utilization: {ICU} Take the maximum of line 43 and all the values on line 49 and divide by the Reference Cycle Length. This is the Intersection Capacity Utilization. It is similar to, but not exactly the same as the intersection volume to capacity ratio. A value less than 1 indicates that the intersection has extra capacity. A value greater than 1 indicates the intersection is over capacity. 51. Level of Service: Enter a letter A to H based on the table and Line 50. Note that the ICU 2000 includes additional levels past F to further differentiate congested operation. ICU Level of Service 0 to 60% A >60% to 70% B >70% to 80% C >80% to 90% D >90% to E 100% >100% to F 110% >110% to G 120% >120% H Discussion The ICU method is designed to give the ICU results comparable to the intersection volume to capacity ratio determined by the HCM 2000 methods. In some cases the results may vary due to differences in calculation and the philosophy behind the calculations. The following sections discuss some of these differences. Permitted Left Turns One difference between ICU and the HCM is the treatment of permitted left tum movements. With ICU, left turns movements must be modeled with protected or spUt phasing. This more accurately measures the capacity of the intersection since the left traffic and the oncoming through can not occupy the intersection at the same time. Ifthe ICU is 0.80, it is possible to increase all traffic movements 25% and the ICU will be less or equal to 1.0. 13 The HCM method uses a complex method for calculating a permitted left tum factor (fLT). This method is better for looking at the details of the intersection operation. The HCM method is better for analyzing delays and operations since it allows the modeUng of pennitted left tums. The use of permitted left tum factors double counts capacity because two conflicting movements are utilizing the intersection during the same green time. Put another way, if the v/c ratio is 0.80, it may be possible to increase the permitted left traffic or the oncoming through ti-affic by 25%i, but not both. Unless there are shared left-through lanes, analyzing an intersection with protected phasing will give a clearer picture of its potential capacity than using permitted phasing. The ICU method does contain a permitted left tum method for use with low volumes of left tum traffic (less than 60 vph) or low volumes of oncoming through fraffic (less than 120 vph). This method is included to allow analysis of intersections with shared left- through lanes. It is possible that the intersection will operate acceptably using higher volumes with permitted phasing. With higher values the protected option will give a result within 10%). The use ofthe protected option does not imply that the intersections should operate using protected phasing. It is simply a more rationale, accurate means of comparing volume to capacity. The ICU is to be used for measuring capacity and is not to be used for operations or designing timing plans. Shared Left-Through Lanes The analysis of shared left-though lanes with permitted left tums is quite complex. The operation can be quite unstable depending on the ratio of left tumers, the oncoming flow rates and the signal timing. Lane selection and lane use can also be hard to predict. Drivers on this type of roadway have difficulty choosing a lane because one left tumer can block the lane for an entire cycle. This type of roadway design should be discouraged because of all of its operational and potential safety problems. These include frequent lane changes, unequal speed between lanes, and through vehicles swerving right to go around left tumers. This operation is also inefficient since the left lane may be blocked for significant portions ofthe green. Altematives to left-through lanes with permitted left tums to consider include: • Converting a left-through lane to left only • Restriping to include a left tum bay • Using split phasing • Converting a shoulder or parking lane into use so that lanes can be restiiped for a left tum lane 14 However, there are many existing intersections that have shared lanes that can not be easily reconfigured. With modest amounts of left tum fraffic and oncoming through traffic, these shared lanes will function as defacto left-tum lanes. This is how they should be modeled with the ICU. The ICU method does contain a permitted left tum method for use with low volumes of left tum traffic (less than 60 vph) or low volumes of oncoming through traffic (less than 120 vph). This method is included to allow analysis of intersections with shared left- through lanes. Ifthe left tum volume is less than 60 vehicles per hour, the saturated flow rate ofthe left lane will be reduced, (Adjusted Saturation A, Une XX). The 60 vehicles per hour assume 2 sneakers per cycles with a 120 second cycle length. sA = s * (nT - vL/60) / nT = Adjusted Saturation A s = Adjusted Saturation for through lane group nT = number of through lanes including shared lanes vL = volume of left tums If the oncoming through traffic is less than 120 vehicles per hour, an analysis is performed assuming that left tums will be blocked for 8 seconds per cycle (4 vehicles per cycle each requiring 2 seconds). Saturation B is the saturated flow of the non-shared through lanes. Reference Time B is the time required for the combined through and left traffic assuming the shared lane is blocked for 8 seconds. Reference Time Lefts is the time required for left tums assuming the left lane is blocked for 8 seconds. If there are more than 60 left tum vehicles per hour and more than 120 oncoming vehicles per hour, the permitted option can not be used. Either recede the shared lane as an exclusive left tum lane, or use split phasing. Single Lane Approaches Single lane approaches are a special case of the shared left-through lanes. The HCM has a special procedure for analyzing single lane approaches. It assumes that a left vehicle will block the entire approach and create gaps for oncoming left tum traffic. This type of analysis is not included in the ICU. Many single lane approaches do not actually operate as the HCM method assumes. At many single lane approaches, through traffic can scoot around left tuming traffic on the shoulder or in the right tum lane. Many single lane approaches actually operate as if there is a short left tiim bay. 15 The single lane approach has some operational and safety issues. If a vehicle fails to signal conectly or observe other vehicles movements, head on collisions are possible. Through vehicles scooting around left tuming vehicles can cause bicycle, pedestrian, sideswipe, and rear end accidents. When designing an intersection, it is recommended that a left tum bay be striped to improve safety when there is significant left tum traffic. When modeling single lane approaches with ICU there are 3 options. 1. If though traffic can scoot around left tuming traffic, code a left turn lane in addition to the single lane. 2. If the left traffic is less than 60 vph or the oncoming through traffic is less than 120 vph, the permitted option may be used. 3. The final option is to use split phasing. In some cases, HCM modeling of single lane approaches may show an intersection v/c ratio up to 20% less than the ICU calculated using the split phasing. It is possible to use the HCM method's intersection volume to capacity ratio as a substitute for the ICU method when modeUng single lane approaches. Be sure to use the reference cycle length in the analysis. Reference Cycle Length One criticism to using ICU and intersection v/c ratios is that they vary depending on the cycle length. The percentage of lost time is directly related to the cycle length, using a longer cycle length can reduce the lost time and improve the ICU and v/c ratio. The ICU 2000 requires the use of a fixed Reference Cycle Length. All analysis is performed using this cycle length insuring that the amount of lost time is consistent for all evaluations. By default the Reference Cycle Length is 120 seconds. It is possible for an agency to specify another Reference Cycle Length to match their desired maximum cycle length. However the agency must consistently use the same Reference Cycle Length for all intersection analysis to provide consistency. The use of a Reference Cycle Length does not imply that the intersections should operate at this cycle. The ICU is to be used for measuring capacity and is not to be used for operations or designing timing plans. 16 Conclusion The ICU 2000 method is presented as an accurate, easy to use method for determining intersection level-of-service. The method is intended to provide an altemative to the HCM intersection methods for the applications of planning, roadway design, and tiaffic impact studies. The method does not optimize or use an actual timing plan and it does not calculate delays. The method is not appropriate for signal timing design or operations. The ICU method is intended to be used in conjunction with other analysis methods such as Synchro and the HCM. The ICU gives a clear, accurate comparison of an intersection's current volume to its ultimate capacity. 17 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS APPENDIX C INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 1205.Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Intersection Orientation: EW Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 EX AM Peak Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments_ Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 12 3 1 ^ 5 6 LTR 1 L T R Volume 47 28 0 0 29 174 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 51 30 0 0 31 189 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 — — Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR L T R Volume 56 0 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 60 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists ?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Config EB 1 LTR WB 4 LTR Northbound 8 10 11 LTR 12 V (vph) 51 0 68 C(m) (vph) 13 4 9 1583 723 v/c 0 . 04 0 . 00 0 . 09 95% queue length 0 .12 0 . 00 0.31 Control Delay 7 . 8 7.3 10 . 5 LOS A A B Approach Delay 10 . 5 Approach LOS B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id Phone: E-Mail Fax; TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 EX AM Peak Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 47 28 0 0 29 174 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 13 8 0 0 8 47 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 51 30 0 0 31 189 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 10 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 56 0 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 15 0 2 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 60 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists ?/Storage / No / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec] Percent Blockage 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 OOOO Prog. Flow vph Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes 30 0 1700 1700 1 31 189 1700 1700 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow--up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 6 . 5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 P (hv) 2 2 2 2 2 t (eg) 0.20 0.20 0 .10 0.20 0 .20 0 .10 Grade/10 0 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 t (3,It) 0 . 00 0 .00 0 .70 0 . 00 0 . 00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 2 -stage 0 .00 0 . 00 1. 00 1. 00 0 . 00 1. 00 1.00 0 . 00 t(c) 1 -stage 4 .1 4 .1 6.4 6.5 6.2 2 -stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t (f,base) 2.20 2 .20 3 . 50 4 .00 3 .30 t(f,HV) 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 P (HV) 2 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 2.2 3 . 5 4 . 0 3 .3 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(qi) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0 . 000 0 .000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? 0 . 000 0 . 000 Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single-stage Process (2) Two- Stage I Stage (3) Process Stage II p(l) P(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p (10) p(ll) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single-stage Process Movement 1 4 L L 7 8 L T 9 R 10 L 11 T 12 R V c,x s Px V c,u,X 220 30 258 258 126 C r,x C plat,x Two-Stage Process 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s 1500 1500 P(x) V(c,u,x) C (r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 126 Potential Capacity 924 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 00 1. 00 Movement Capacity 924 Probability of Queue free St. 1. 00 0 . 99 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 30 220 Potential Capacity 1583 1349 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 00 1. 00 Movement Capacity 1583 1349 Probability of Queue free St. 1. 00 0 . 96 Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 1. 00 0 . 96 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 258 Potential Capacity 646 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 00 1. 00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0 . 96 0 . 96 Movement Capacity 621 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1. 00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 258 Potential Capacity 731 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 00 1. 00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0 . 96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0 . 97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0 . 96 0 . 96 Movement Capacity 703 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 258 Potential Capacity 646 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 621 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t 621 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10~ Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 258 Potential Capacity 731 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1 00 1. 00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0 96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0 97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0 96 0 . 96 Movement Capacity 703 Results for Two-stage process: a y c t 703 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 60 0 8 Movement Capacity (vph) 703 621 924 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 723 Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 L 9 R 10 11 12 L T R 703 621 924 60 0 8 C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 723 Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement Lane Config 1 LTR 4 LTR 10 11 LTR 12 V (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 51 0 1349 1583 0 . 04 0 . 00 0 .12 0 . 00 7 . 8 7.3 A A 68 723 0 . 09 0.31 10.5 B 10 . 5 B Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) v(il) v(i2) s (il) s (i2) P*(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 Volume for Volume for Saturation Saturation stream 2 or 5 stream 3 or 6 flow rate for flow rate for stream 2 stream 3 or or 5 6 0 . 96 30 0 1700 1700 0 . 96 7 . 8 1 0 . 3 1. 00 31 189 1700 1700 1.00 7.3 1 0 . 0 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Doug Talbott Agency/Co.: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Date Performed: 2/18/2004 Analysis Tirae Period: EX PM Peak Intersection: Jefferson/Chinquapin Jurisdiction: Carlsbad Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 0 .25 Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 33 34 0 0 24 109 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 36 0 0 26 118 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 147 0 27 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 159 0 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 0 Conf igurat ion LTR Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR 1 1 LTR V (vph) 35 0 188 C(m) (vph) 1438 1575 804 v/c 0 . 02 0. 00 0 .23 95% queue length 0 . 07 0 . 00 0 . 90 Control Delay 7 . 6 7.3 10 . 8 LOS A A B Approach Delay 10 . 8 Approach LOS B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id Phone: E-Mail: Fax: _TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 EX PM Peak Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad Intersection Orientation : EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 33 34 0 0 24 109 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 9 9 0 0 7 30 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 36 0 0 26 118 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 10 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 147 0 27 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 40 0 7 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 159 0 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 OOOO Prog. Flow vph Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume. maj or th vehicles: 36 26 Shared In volume, maj or rt vehicles: 0 118 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes 1 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 6 . 5 6.2 t (c, hv) 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0 .20 0.20 0 .10 0.20 0.20 0 .10 Grade/100 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 t(3,It) 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 .70 0 .00 0 . 00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0 . 00 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 2-stage 0 . 00 0 .00 1.00 1. 00 0 . 00 1.00 1. 00 0 . 00 t(c) 1-stage 4 .1 4 .1 6.4 6 . 5 6.2 2 - stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2 .20 2 .20 3 . 50 4 . 00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 P (HV) 2 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 2.2 3 . 5 4 . 0 3 .3 Worksheet 5--Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g{qi) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0 . 000 0 . 000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? 0 .000 0 . 000 Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p{x) (1) Single-stage Process (2) (3) Two-Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(l) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p (10) P(ll) p (12) Computation 4 and 5 Single-stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 144 36 191 191 85 V c,x s Px V c,u,X C r,x C plat,x Two-Stage Process 10 11 stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c,u,x) 1500 1500 C(r,x) C (plat,x) Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1 1 00 00 85 974 1. 00 974 0 . 97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 36 1575 1. 00 1575 1. 00 1.00 144 1438 1. 00 1438 0 . 98 0 . 98 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1. 0 . 1. 00 98 00 191 704 1. 00 0 . 98 686 1 . 00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1. 00 0 . 98 0 . 98 0 . 95 191 798 1. 00 0 . 98 779 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Miiior St. 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 191 Potential Capacity 704 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 686 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t 686 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 lo" Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 191 Potential Capacity 798 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1 00 1. 00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0 98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0 98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0 95 0 . 98 Movement Capacity 779 Results for Two-stage process: d y c t 779 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations— Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 159 0 29 Movement Capacity (vph) 779 686 974 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 804 Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep ~~ 779 686 974 Volume 15 9 0 2 9 Delay Q sep Q sep -l-l round (Qsep -i-l) n max C sh 804 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR LTR V (vph) 35 0 188 C(m) (vph) 1438 1575 804 v/c 0 . 02 0 . 00 0.23 95% queue length 0 . 07 0 . 00 0 . 90 Control Delay 7 . 6 7.3 10 . 8 LOS A A B Approach Delay 10 . 8 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0 . 98 1. 00 v(il). Volume for Stream 2 or 5 36 26 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 118 s(il). Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 1700 s(i2). Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 1700 P*(oj) 0 . 98 1. 00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 7 . 6 7.3 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0 . 2 0 . 0 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2 004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Intersection Orientation: EW Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 EX -I- P AM Peak Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad Study period (hrs] 0 .25 Major Street Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 | 4 5 L T R I L T 6 R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 47 28 0.92 0.92 51 30 2 Undivided 0 1 LTR No 0 0 . 92 0 0 0 . 92 0 2 30 0 . 92 32 194 0 . 92 210 0 1 LTR No Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound 7 8 9 LTR Southbound 10 11 12 LTR Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 58 0 . 92 63 2 0 0 . 92 0 2 0 8 0 . 92 8 Flared Approach: Exists ?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR 1 j LTR V (vph) 51 0 71 C(m) (vph) 13 24 158 3 -711 v/c 0 . 04 0 . 00 0 .10 95% queue length 0 .12 0 . 00 0 .33 Control Delay 7 . 8 7 . 3 10.6 LOS A A B Approach Delay 10 . 6 Approach LOS B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id Phone: E-Mail Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 EX -(- P AM Peak Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad Intersection Orientation : EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 Major Street Movements L T R L T R Volume 47 28 0 0 30 194 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 13 8 0 0 8 53 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 51 30 0 0 32 210 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 10 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 58 0 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 16 0 2 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 63 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 No / Flared Approach: Exists ?/Storage / No / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 OOOO Prog. Flow vph Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Flow Type Time Length vph sec sec Prog. Speed mph Distance to Signal feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes 30 0 1700 1700 1 32 210 1700 1700 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 4 .1 7 .1 6 . 5 6 . 2 t(c,hv) 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 P (hv) 2 2 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0 .10 0 .20 0.20 0 .10 Grade/100 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 t(3,lt) 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 70 0 .00 0 .00 t(c,T): 1 - stage 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 2 -stage 0 . 00 0 . 00 1. 00 1. 00 0 . 00 1. 00 1. 00 0 . 00 t (c) 1 -stage 4 .1 4 . 1 6.4 6 . 5 6.2 2 -stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LLLTRLTR t (f,base) t (f,HV) P (HV) t (f) 2.20 0 . 90 2 2.2 2 .20 0 . 90 2 2.2 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 3 . 50 0 . 90 2 3 . 5 4 . 00 0 . 90 2 4 . 0 3 .30 0 . 90 2 3 .3 Worksheet 5-•Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(qi) g(q2) g{q) Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0 . 000 0 . 000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? 0 . 000 0 . 000 Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single-stage Process (2) (3) Two-Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(l) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p (10) p(ll) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single-stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 242 30 269 269 137 V c,x s Px V c,u,X C r,x C plat,x Two-Stage Process 10 11 stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c,u,x) 1500 1500 C(r,x) C (plat,x) Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1. 1. 00 00 137 911 1. 00 911 0 . 99 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 30 1583 1. 00 1583 1.00 1. 00 242 1324 1. 00 1324 0 . 96 0 . 96 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1. 0 . 1. 00 96 00 269 637 1.00 0 . 96 612 1. 00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 00 269 720 1. 00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 0 . 96 0 . 97 0 . 96 0 . 96 692 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 269 Potential Capacity 637 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 612 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t 612 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage ~~ Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage ~~~~ Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 269 Potential Capacity 720 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1 00 1. 00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0 96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0 97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0 96 0 . 96 Movement Capacity 692 Results for Two-stage process: y c t 692 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 63 0 8 Movement Capacity (vph) 692 612 911 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 711 Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 L 8 9 10 TRL 11 T 12 R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep -fl round (Qsep -t-1) 692 63 612 0 911 8 n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 711 Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 Lane Config LTR LTR 7 8 9 10 11 LTR 12 V (vph) 51 0 71 C(m) (vph) 1324 1583 711 v/c 0 . 04 0.00 0 .10 95% queue length 0 .12 0. 00 0 .33 Control Delay 7 . 8 7 . 3 10 . 6 LOS A A B Approach Delay 10 . 6 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11-Shared Maj or LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P (oj ) 0 . 96 1.00 v(il). Volume for stream 2 or 5 30 32 v(i2). Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 210 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 1700 s(i2). Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 1700 P*(oj) 0 . 96 1. 00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 7 . 8 7 . 3 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0 . 3 0 . 0 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin North/South Street: Jefferson Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 EX -I- P PM Peak Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad Intersection Orientation EW Study period (hrs): 0 .25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 12 3 1 4 5 6 LTR 1 L T R Volume 33 35 0 0 24 119 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 38 0 0 26 129 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR 1 L T R Volume 156 0 27 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 169 0 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists? /storage / No / Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Config EB WB 1 4 1 LTR LTR 1 35 0 1425 1572 0 . 02 0 . 00 0 . 08 0 . 00 7 . 6 7.3 A A Northbound 8 9 10 Southbound 11 LTR 12 V (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 198 796 0 .25 0 . 98 11. 0 B 11. 0 B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.Id Phone: E-Mail; Fax; Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: EX -i- P PM Peak _TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS_ Doug Talbott Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2/18/2004 Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Chinquapin Jefferson/Chinquapin Carlsbad North/South Street: Jefferson Intersection Orientation : EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 33 35 0 0 24 119 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 9 10 0 0 7 32 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 38 0 0 26 129 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 156 0 27 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0 . 92 0 . 92 0 . 92 Peak-15 Minute Volume 42 0 7 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 169 0 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists ?/Storage / No / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 OOOO Prog. Flow vph Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes 38 0 1700 1700 1 26 129 1700 1700 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4 . 1 4 .1 7 . 1 6 5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1 . 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 P (hv) 2 2 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0 .10 0.20 0 . 20 0 .10 Grade/100 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 t(3,lt) 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 70 0 . 00 0 . 00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0 . 00 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 2-stage 0 . 00 0 . 00 1. 00 1. 00 0 .00 1. 00 1. 00 0 . 00 t(c) 1-stage 4 . 1 4 .1 6.4 6 . 5 6.2 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 a 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t (f,base) 2 20 2.20 3 .50 4 . 00 3.30 t (f,HV) 0 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 P (HV) 2 2 2 2 2 t (f) 2 . 2 2 . 2 3 . 5 4 . 0 3 .3 Worksheet 5 -Effect Of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V (1,prot) v(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(qi) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow. Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0 . 000 0 . 000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? 0 . 000 0 . 000 Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single-stage Process (2) (3; Two-Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(l) p(4) p(7) P(8) p(9) p(10) p(ll) P (12) Computation 4 and 5 Single-stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 155 38 198 198 90 V c,x s Px V c,u,X C r, X C plat,x Two-Stage Process 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V (c,u,x) 1500 1500 C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1. 00 1. 00 90 968 1. 00 968 0 . 97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 38 1572 1. 00 1572 1. 00 1. 00 155 1425 1. 00 1425 0 . 98 0 . 97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1. 00 0 . 97 1. 00 198 698 1. 00 0 . 97 680 1. 00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1. 00 0 . 97 0 . 98 0 . 95 198 791 1. 00 0 . 98 772 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH-from-Minor St. 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 198 Potential Capacity 698 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity 680 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t 680 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 To" Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 198 Potential Capacity 791 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1 00 1. 00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0 97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0 98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0 95 0 . 98 Movement Capacity 772 Results for Two-stage process: y c t 772 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 169 0 29 Movement Capacity (vph) 772 680 968 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 796 Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 L 8 9 10 TRL 11 T 12 R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep -1-1 round (Qsep + 1) 772 169 680 0 968 29 n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 796 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement Lane Config 14 7 8 LTR LTR 9 10 11 LTR 12 V (vph) 35 0 198 C(m) (vph) 1425 1572 796 v/c 0 . 02 0 . 00 0.25 95% queue length 0 . 08 0 . 00 0 . 98 Control Delay 7 . 6 7 . 3 11. 0 LOS A A B Approach Delay 11. 0 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11-Shared Maj or LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0 . 98 1. 00 v(il). Volume for stream 2 or 5 38 26 v(i2). Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 129 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 1700 s(i2). Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 1700 P*(oj) 0 . 97 1. 00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 7 . 6 7.3 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.2 0 . 0 Highway Capacify Manual 2000 PREFACE OVERVIEW The procedures in this chapter can be used to analyze the capacity and level of service, lane requirements, and effects of traffic and design features of two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections. In addition, a procedure for estimating capacity of roundabouts is presented. Each type of unsignalized intersection (TWSC, AWSC, and roundabout) is addressed in a separate part of this chapter. TWSC intersections are covered in Part A, AWSC intersections are covered in Part B, and information on roundabouts is provided in Part C. References for all parts are found in Part D. Example problems that demonstrate the calculations and results achieved by applying the procedures are also found in Part D. Background and concepts for TWSC intersections are in Chapter 10 UMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY This chapter does not include a detailed method for estimating delay for yield sign- controlled intersections. However, with appropriate changes in the values of key parameters, the analyst could apply the TWSC method to yield-controlled intersections. All ofthe methods are for steady-state conditions (i.e., the demand and capacity conditions are constant during the analysis period); the methods are not designed to evaluate how fast or how often the facility transitions from one demand/capacity state to another. Analysts interested in that kind of information should consider applying simulation models. PART A. TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 1. INTRODUCTION - PART A In this section a methodology for analyzing capacity and level of service of two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections is presented. II. METHODOLOGY - PART A Capacity analysis at TWSC intersections depends on a clear description and understanding of the interaction of drivers on the minor or stop-controlled approach with drivers on the major street. Both gap acceptance and empirical models have been developed to describe this interaction. Procedures described in this chapter rely on a gap acceptance model developed and refined in Germany (J). The concepts from this model are described in Chapter 10. Exhibit 17-1 illustrates input to and the basic computation order of the method described in this chapter. Both theoretical and empirical approaches have been used to arrive at a methodology LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA Level of service (LOS) for a TWSC intersection is detennined by the computed or measured control delay and is defmed for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS criteria are given in Exhibit 17-2. LOS is not defined for the overall intersection 17-1 Chapter 17 - Unsignalized Intersections Introduction - TWSC Intersections Highway Capacity Manual 2000 The LOS criteria for TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter 16 for signahzed intersections primarily because different transportation facilities create different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signahzed intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an unsignalized intersection. INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS Data requirements for the TWSC intersection methodology are similar to those for other.capacity analysis techniques. Detailed descriptions of the geometries, control, and volumes at the intersection are needed. Key geometric factors include number and use of lanes, channeUzation, two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) or raised or striped median storage (or both), approach grade, and existence of flared approaches on the minor street. The number and use of lanes are critical factors. Vehicles in adjacent lanes can use the same gap in the traffic stream simultaneously (unless impeded by a conflicting user of the gap). When movements share lanes, only one vehicle from those movements can use each gap. A TWLTL or a raised or striped median (or both) allows a minor-stream vehicle to cross one major traffic stream at a time. The grade of the approach has a direct and measurable effect on the capacity of each minor movement. Compared with a level approach, downgrades increase capacity and upgrades decrease capacity. A flared approach on the minor street increases the capacity by allowing more vehicles to be served simultaneously. Volumes must be specified by movement. For the analysis to reflect conditions during the peak 15 min, the analyst must divide the full hour volumes by the peak-hour factor (PHF) before beginning computations. If the analyst has peak 15-min flow rates, they can be entered directly with the PHF set to 1.0. The adjusted flow rate for movement x is designated as v,, in this chapter. By convention, subscripts 1 to 6 define vehicle movements on the major street, and subscripts 7 to 12 define movements on the minor street Pedestrian flows impede all minor-street movements. Pedestrian volumes must be specified by movement. Subscripts 13 to 16 define the pedestrian rtiovements. The presence of traffic signals upstream from the intersection on the major street will produce nonrandom flows and affect the capacity of the minor-street approaches if the signal is within 0.25 mi ofthe intersection. The basic capacity model assumes that the headways on the major sU-eet are exponentially distributed. To assess the effect on capacity, a separate analysis is provided that requires the signalized intersection data (cycle length, green time), the saturation flow rate, and information on platooned flow. PRIORITY OF STREAMS In using the methodology, die priority of right-of-way given to each traffic stream must be identified. Some streams have absolute priority, whereas others have to give way or yield to higher-order streams. Exhibit 17-3 shows the relative priority of streams at both T- and four-leg intersections. Movements of Rank 1 (denoted by the subscript i) include through traffic on the major street and right-turning traffic from the major sU-eet Movements of Rank 2 (subordinate to 1 and denoted by the subscript j) include left-turning traffic from the major street and right-turning traffic onto the major street. Movements of Rank 3 (subordinate to 1 and 2 and denoted by the subscript k) include through traffic on the minor street (in the case of a four-leg intersection) and left- turning traffic from the minor street (in the case of a T-intersection). Movements of Rank 4 (subordinate to all others and denoted by the subscript 1) include left-turning traffic from the minor street. Rank 4 movements only occur at four-leg intersections. LOS thresholds differ from those for signalized intersections to reflect different driver expectations Rank Subscript 1 i 2 J 3 k 4 I 17-3 Chapter 17 - Unsignalized intersections Methodology - TWSC Intersections Highway Capacify Manual 2000 Left turns from the major street are in conflict with the total opposing through and right-turn flows, because they must cross the through flow and merge with the right-turn flow. The method does not differentiate between crossing and merging conflicts. Left turns from the major street and the opposing right tums from the major street are considered to merge, regardless of the number of lanes provided in the exit roadway. Minor-street through movements have a direct crossing or merging conflict with all movements on the major street, as indicated in Exhibit 17-4, except the right turn into the subject approach. Only one-half of this movement is included in the computation, for the reasons discussed above. In addition, field research (4) has shown that the effect of left-tum vehicles is twice their actual number. This effect is reflected in Exhibit 17-4. The left tum from the minor street is the most difficult maneuver to execute at a TWSC intersection, and it faces the most complex set of conflicting flows, which include all major-street flows, in addition to the opposing right-turn and through movements on the minor street. Only one-half of the opposing right-turn and through movement flow rate is included as conflicting flow rate because both movements are stop-controlled and their effect on left turns is diminished. The additional capacity impedance effects of the opposing right-turn and through movement flow rates are taken into account elsewhere in the procedure. Pedestrians may also conflict witii vehicular traffic streams. Pedestrian flow rates, also defined as v^, witii x noting the leg of the intersection being crossed, should be included as part of the conflicting flow rates, since tiiey, like vehicular flows, define the beginning or ending of a gap that may be used by a minor-sti-eam vehicle. Although it recognizes some peculiarities associated with pedestrian flows, this metiiod takes a uniform approach to vehicular and pedesti-ian movements. While regulations or practices may vary between jurisdictions, this methodology assumes that pedesb-ians crossing the subject or opposing approaches have Rank 1 status and that pedesttians crossing the two conflicting approaches to the left or right of the subject minor-street approach have Rank 2 status. The conflicting pedestrian flow rates are identified in Exhibit 17-4. Exhibit 17-4 also identifies the conflicting flow rates for each stage of a two-stage gap acceptance process that takes place at some intersections where vehicles store in tiie median area. If a two-stage gap acceptance process is not present, tiie conflicting flow rates shown in the rows labeled Stage I and Stage II should be added together and considered as one conflicting flow rate for the movement in question. CRITICAL GAP AND FOLLOW-UP TIME The critical gap, t^, is defined as the minimum time interval in the major-street traffic stream that allows intersection entry for one minor-street vehicle (5). Thus, the driver's critical gap is the minimum gap that would be acceptable. A particular driver would reject any gaps less than the critical gap and would accept gaps greater than or equal to the critical gap. Estimates of critical gap can be made on the basis of observations of the largest rejected and smallest accepted gap for a given intersection. The time between the departure of one vehicle from the minor street and the departure of the next vehicle using the same major-sUreet gap, under a condition of continuous queuing on the minor street, is called the follow-up time, tf. Thus, tf is the headway that defines the saturation flow rate for the approach if there were no conflicting vehicles on movements of higher rank. In using Exhibit 17-4 to compute conflicting flow rates, the analyst should carefully consult the footnotes, which allow modifications to the equations in special cases. Critical gap defined Follow-up time defined 17-5 Chapter 17 - Unsignalized Intersections Methodology - TWSC Intersections Highway Capacity Manual 2000 The following footnotes apply to Exhibit 17-4: [a] If right-turning traffic from the major street is separated by a triangular island and has to comply with a yield or stop sign, Vg and Wg need not be considered. [b] If there is more than one lane on the major street, the flow rates in the right lane are assumed to be v^N or Vg/N, where N is the number of through lanes. The user can specify a different lane distribution if field data are available. [c] If there is a right-tum lane on the ma/or street, v^ or Vg should not be considered. [dj Omit the farthest right-turn v^ for Subject Movement fOorVg for Subject Movement 7 if the major street is multilane. [ej If right-turning traffic from the minor street is separated by a triangular island and has to comply with a yield or stop sign, Vg and v.^2 need not be considered, [f] Omit Vg and v,^ for multilane sites, or use one-half their values if the minor approach is flared. EXHIBIT 17-4 DEFINITION AND COMPUTATION OF CONFLICTING FLOWS Subject Movement Subject and Conflicting Movements Conflicting Traffic Flows, V;.,, 16 Major LT (1.4) © Vc,l = VJ + VgW + Vi6 Minor RT (9, 12) 14 3 ^.....15..^t lb] 15 V,4 = V2 + V3M-^V15 (12) 16 13 Vc,12 = -Y" + 0-5V6l'' + Vi3 + Vi6 Stage I Minor TH (8,11) 1 ^ • 2 > 3 ^ <-15 © VcJ8 = 2Vi +V2 + O.5V3M + V15 stage I 15 -< > V 6 < 5 >^ 4 11 16 y 6 < 5 4 Vc,l,11 = 2V4 + V5-f0.5V6M + Vi6 1 5f 2 > 3 ^ 15 < Minor LT (7, 10) Vc,ll,8=2V4 + V5-^V6M + V16 stage I —>- © Vc,l,7 - 2Vi -I- V2 + O.5V3M -I- V15 Vc,ll,11=2Vi+V2-^V3W + Vi5 10 16 Stage II 12 Il- ls -*— Vc,ll,7 = 2V4 + -j^ 0.5V6[''1 + O.5V12M + 0.5Vii I + V1, Vc,l,10 = 2V4 -^ V5 + O.SVgW + V16 1 J< 2 > 3~ ^ 14 Vc,ii,io = 2v, + ^+0.5v3M + 0.5vgM- 0.5V8 + Vi4 Chapter 17 - Unsignalized Intersections Methodology - TWSC Intersections 17-6 Highway Capacity Manuai 2000 Pedestrians are treated as movements EXHIBIT 17-3. TRAFFIC STREAMS AT A TWSC INTERSECTION Four-leg intersection T-intersection 12II10 dOlsl V -©-*i J Rank 1 2 3 •*S '/^ fsTOP 7ft 9 Traffic stream 2, 3,5, 6,15,16 1,4,13,14,9,12 8,11 7,10 /—\ 1 STOP 1 ) Rank 1 2 3 Traffic stream 2, 3, 5, 15 4,13,14, 9 7 For example, if a left-turning vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle from the minor street are waiting to cross the major traffic stream, die first available gap of acceptable size would be taken by the left-turning vehicle. The minor-street through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a large number of such left-turning vehicles could use up so many of the available gaps that minor-street through vehicles would be severely impeded or unable to make safe crossing movements. Because right-turning vehicles from the minor street merely merge into gaps in the right-hand lane of the stieam into which they turn, tiiey require only a gap in that lane, not in the entire major-street tiaffic flow (this may not be true for some trucks and vans with long wheelbases that encroach on more than one lane in making their turn). Furthermore, a gap in the overall major-street traffic could be used simultaneously by another vehicle. For this reason, the method assumes that right turns from the minor street do not impede any of the other flows using major-stteet gaps. Pedestrian movements also have priorities with respect to vehicular movements. While this may be a policy issue varying by jurisdiction, both the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (i) infer that pedestrians must use acceptable gaps in major-street (Rank 1) traffic streams and that pedestrians have priority over all minor-street traffic at a TWSC intersection. Specific rankings are shown in Exhibit 17-3. CONFLICTING TRAFFIC Each movement at a TWSC intersection faces a different set of conflicts that are directly related to the nature of the movement. These conflicts are shown in Exhibit 17-4, which illustrates the computation of the parameter v^,the conflicting flow rate for movement x, that is, the total flow rate that conflicts with movement x (veh/h). The right-turn movement fi-om the minor street, for example, is in conflict with only the major-street through movement in the right-hand lane into which right-turners will merge. Exhibit 17-4 includes one-half of the right-tum movement fi^om the major street, because only some of these tums tend to inhibit the subject movement. Chapter 17 - Unsignalized Intersections Methodology - TWSC Intersections 17-4 Highway Capacity Manual 2000 EXHIBIT 17-1, TWSC UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION METHODOLOGY Input Geometric data Hourly turning movement volumes Heavy vefiicle percentages Pedestrian data Upstream signal data Compute flow rate Identify conflicting traffic flow Compute gap times - Critical gap times - Follow-up times Compute potential capacity Adjust potential capacity and compute movement capacity - Impedance effects - Shared-lane operation - Effects of upstream signals - Two-stage gap acceptance process - Flared minor-street approaches Compute queue lengths Compute control delays Determine levels of service EXHIBIT 17-2. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR TWSC INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay (s/veh) 0-10 >10-15 >15-25 > 25-35- >35-50 >50 Chapter 17 - Unsignalized Intersections Methodology - TWSC Intersections 17-2 UNSCOTT LAW (Si GREENSPAN ENGINEERS APPENDIX D CITY OF CARLSBAD SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS 1205. Rep The Bluffs Traffic Impact Analysis LLG/San Diego FEB-11-2004 WED 02:11 PM CARLSBAD ENGINEERING FAX NO, 760 602 1052 The mlnJiniim wicJth for sidewalks in Biy zone shall be 5,0', iP'^if^^'^'^J^'P^ curb. A4 0' minimum ciDarance shiip be malntalneci around all obstructions such as street lli jhts, mailboxes, flre hydra li i, guardrail, etc. Trans^&ns ^ obstacles shall befour4o-one (4:1). Sldawall:s arouiii licurb returns shali be widened on aH collector and abovt» designated arterials to f r^ida for future signals, lights and mounting P. 01 posts and handicap ramps. Sidewalk i amps shall be required et and shall <;»nform with the plans and grooves ss directed by the Engineei« D. Meandering sidewalks require prior 8. filf^KT DISTANCE ^ijl in*9rsecllon3 Where sidewalks are required i ipPS Drawings incorporating th© herringbone I i3|pro"3' from the City Engineer, A, Roadway Sight Distance: Sight disl| rjces shall be (n accordance wfth CALTRANS Highway tSesign Manual (current odKpn): B. intersection Sight Distance: The dea ||j |n of Intersection sight distance within the City will be governed by Topic 405 ot HIGHWAY - DESIGN MANUAL with ttii| ^oilpvlng additions and darifications: 1} Local/Goltector Intersections Signalize-j Intersections mu|| reqjirements. ^e Ca'lfomia Department of Transportation above follow CALTRANS requirements. I be designed with corner sight distance code. I" !.' fflGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-7 My 1, 1995 In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 seconds of comer sight distances may be excessive. High costs may be attributable to right of way acquisition, building removal, extensive excavation, or unmitigable environmental impacts. In such cases a lesser value of comer sight distance, as described under the following headings, may be used. (b) Public Road Intersections- At unsignal- ized pubhc road intersections Csee Index 405.7^ comer sight distance values given in Table 405.1A should be provided. At signalized intersections the values for comer sight distances given in Table 405.1 A should also be applied whenever possible. Even though traffic flows are designed to move at separate times, unanticipated vehicle conflicts can occur due to violation of signal, right tums on red, malfunction of the signaJ, or use of flashing red/yellow mode. Where restrictive conditions exist, similar to ttiose listed in Index 405.1(2)(a), the minimum value for corner sight distance at both signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (c) Private Road Intersections—The minimum corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. Table 405.1 A Corner Sight Distance (7-1/2 Second Criteria) (d) Urban Driveways—Comer sight distance requirements as described above are not applied to urban driveways. (3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersections where the State route tums or crosses another State route, the decision sight distance values given in Table 405.IB should be used. In computing and measuring decision sight distance, the 1070 mm eye height and the 150 mm object height should be used, the object being located on the side of the intersection nearest the approaching driver. Design Speed Comer Sight (km/h) Distance (m) 40 90 50 110 60 130 70 150 80 170 90 190 100 21(f 110 230 Table 405.1 B Decision Sight Distance Design Speed Decision Sight (km/h) Distance (m) 40 110 50 145 60 175 70 200 80 230 90 275 100 315 Table 405.1 C Application of Sight Distance Requirements Intersection Sight Distance Types Stopping Corner Decision Private Roads Public Streets and Roads Signalized Intersections State Route Inter- XXX sections & Route Direction Changes, with or without Signals (1) Using stopping sight distance between an eye height of 1070 mm and an object height of 1300 mm. See Index 405.1(2)(a) for setback requirements. (2) Apply comer sight distance requiiements at signalized intersections whenever possible due to unanticipated violations of the signals or malfunctions of the signals. See Index 405.1(2)(b). X Xd) X X X (2) X X fflGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 200-1 July 1, 1995 CHAPTER 200 GEOMETRIC DESIGN AND STRUCTURE STANDARDS Topic 201 - Sight Distance Index 201.1 - General Sight distance is the continuous length of highway ahead visible to the driver. Three types of sight distance are considered here: passing, stopping, and decision. Stopping sight distance is the minimum sight distance to be provided on multilane highways and on 2-lane roads when passing sight distance is not eco- nomically obtainable. Stopping sight distance also is to be provided for all elements of inter- changes and intersections at grade, including private road connections (see Topic 504, Index 405.1, & Figure 405.7). Decision sight dis- tance is used at major decision points (see Indexes 201.7 and 504.2). The following table shows the standards for passing and stopping sight distance related to design speed, and these shall be the minimum values used in design. Table 201.1 Sight Distance Standards Design Speed^^'* (km/h) (2) Stopping' (m) Passing (m) 30 30 217 -J6y' 285 50 65 345 60 85 407 70 105 482 80 130 541 90 160 605 100 190 670 110 220 ••728 120 255 792 130 290 855 (1) See Topic 101 for selection of design speed. (2) Increase by 20% on sustained downgrades >3% & > 2 km. Chapter EI of "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," AASHTO, 1994, contains a thorough discussion of the derivation of stopping sight distance. 201.2 Passing Sight Distance Passing sight distance is the minimum sight distance required for the driver of one vehicle to pass another vehicle safely and comfortably. Passing must be accomplished without reducing the speed of an oncoming vehicle traveling at the design speed should it come into view after the overtaking maneuver is started. The sight distance available for passing at anyplace is the longest distance at which a driver whose eyes are 1070 mm above the pavement surface can see the top of an object 1300 mm high on the road. Passing sight distance is considered only on 2- lane roads. At critical locations, a stretch of 3- or 4-lane passing section with stopping sight distance is sometimes more economical than two lanes with passing sight distance (see Index 204.4). Figure 201.2 and Tables 201.2A & B show the relationship among length of vertical curve, design speed, and algebraic difference in grades. Any one factor can be determined when the other two are known. See Chapter 6 of the Traffic Manual for criteria relating to barrier striping of no-passing zones. 201.3 Stopping Sight Distance The minimum stopping sight distance is the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to bring his vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible. Stopping sight distance is measured from the driver's eyes, which are assumed to be 1070 mm above the pavement surface, to an object 150 mm high on the road. The stopping sight distances in Table 201.1 should be increased by 20% on sustained downgrades steeper than 3% and longer than 2 km. -ADAIVIS STREET LINK COUNT HISTORY Page 1 of 1 TAMARACK AVENUE TO CHINQUAPIN AVENUE Start Date start Day 24-Hour ADT Remarks Start Date start Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 8/02/94 TH 1,308 2,278 — ... 3,586 4/01/99 TH 1,132 2,019 — ... 3,151 CHINQUAPIN AVENUE TO HOOVER STREET 24-Hour ADT start Date Start Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 3/21/95 TU 589 737 ... ... 1,326 Just s/o Chinquapin 4/01/99 TH 445 638 ... ... 1,083 Just n/o Hoover Street 10/02/02 W 675 975 ... ... 1,650 Just s/o Chinquapin HOOVER STREET TO HIGHLAND DRIVE 24-Hour ADT start . Date start Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 3/22/88 TU 423 655 ... ... 1,078 7/23/96 TU 460 687 ... ... 1,147 7/09/02 TU 448 751 ... ... 1,199 7/10/02 W 493 763 ... ... 1,256 HIGHLAND DRIVE TO PARK DRIVE Start Date Start Day 24-Hour ADT Remarks Start Date Start Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 3/22/88 TU 374 581 ... ... 955 Just s/o Highland 4/01/99 TH 477 349 ... ... 826 Just s/o Park Drive 10/02/02 W 786 372 — ... 1,158 Just s/o Park Drive CHINQUAPIN AVENUE LINK COUNT HISTORY Page 1 of 1 BALDWIN LANE TO JEFFERSON STREET Start Date Start Day 24-Hour ADT Start Date Start Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 6/29/98 M — — 643 565 1,208 6/30/98 TU ... — 623 569 1,192 10/31/00 TU — ... 640 625 1,265 JEFFERSON STREET TO 1-5 OVERPASS Start Start 24-Hour AD T Date Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 9/25/01 TU — ... 2,322 2,337 4,659 HARRISON STREET TO ADAMS STREET Start Date Start Day 24-Hour ADT Remarks Start Date Start Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 3/21/95 TU — ... 1,094 1,442 2,536 5/07/02 TU — ... 1,211 1,797 3,008 ADAMS STREET TO SYME DRIVE Start Start -nuur f\u Date Day NB SB EB WB Total Remarks 8/03/94 W ... ... 1,586 1,448 3,034 5/07/02 TU ... ... 1,589 1,392 2,981 J