84 Stormwater drainage in this area is provided by the Sutter County Water Agency. As the Sutter County Water Agency did not comment on the Project, the impacts on the stormwater drainage system are considered to be a less than significant impact.
The extension of electric power facilities, natural gas facilities and telecommunication facilities are provided by private companies, none of which have voiced concerns over the extensions of their services to this Project site. With these considerations the impact on these types of facilities are expected to be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments? See Part b), above.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Recology Yuba-Sutter provides solid waste disposal for the area as well as for all of Sutter and Yuba Counties in compliance with all regulations. There is currently a 40-50 year landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development and its associated waste. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? See Part d), above.
85 3.20 Wildfire
Table 3-20: Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
3.20.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wildland fires are an annual hazard in Sutter County, particularly in the vicinity of the Sutter Buttes, and, to a lesser degree due to urbanized development, Yuba City. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard. Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires. Irrigated agricultural areas, which tend to surround Yuba City, are considered a low hazard for wildland fires.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility.
The Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Regarding the rezoning to remove the X19 Combining Zone District, there is no impact on wildfire potential as the rezoning involves only methods of financing street improvements. Therefore, the rezoning is not further discussed in this section.
86 3.20.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, the construction that would result from this Project is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area.
Therefore, the impacts of the Project related to emergency response or evacuations would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The Project site is in a level urban area with little to no native vegetation remaining, and the urban area is surrounded by irrigated farmland. This type of environment is generally not subject to wildfires. In light of this, the exposure of the Project to wildfire is considered to be a less than significant impact. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As discussed above, the site is not near any wildland areas and the Project itself will not create any improvements that potentially could generate wildfire conditions. As such the Project will not be constructing or maintaining wildfire related infrastructure such as fire breaks, emergency water sources, etc. Thus, the Project will not create any potential significant impacts that could result from these types of improvements.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides.
Impacts from the Project related to these issues would be less than significant.
87 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3.21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important example of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
3.21.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
This 2.5-acre property was stripped many years ago of native vegetation and it is currently surrounded by urban development. There are no trees on this portion of the property, and there are not on-site or nearby waterways or wetland areas. Therefore, the proposed development will not significantly degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the proposed Project, with its mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the local environment.
88 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
This Project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. As such, with the suggested mitigation measure for traffic, the traffic that will be generated is within the range of what was anticipated in the General Plan which considered anticipated future growth of the area. The City has adequate water and wastewater capacity, and the Project will be extending those services to the site. Stormwater drainage will also meet all City standards. The City has good development and design standards that are being applied to the new building. The loss of agricultural land is cumulative but based on City and County agricultural protection program, the loss is limited to within the urban areas of the City, which is a minor portion of the entire County. The school district is not significantly impacted as there are no new residences proposed. The FRAQMD also did not comment that the Project would create any significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Therefore, there are no significant impacts that will be individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction-related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts would occur for a very short period and only be a minor impact during that time period. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have any direct or indirect significant adverse impacts on humans.
89 4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference According to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an ND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record. The incorporated language will be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the ND. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department located at the address provided above. The following documents are incorporated by reference:
W-Trans, Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building, April 11, 2024.
Fehr & Peers, Inc. September 2020. SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for City of Yuba City.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, November 2017. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Hex Maps. Work VMT-2020 MTP/SCS (Adopted).
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland 2012. August 2014.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2013. Sutter County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014.
Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
Yuba City, City of. 2016. City of Yuba City Municipal Code. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/yuba_city/codes/code_of_ordinances Dyett & Bhatia. 2004. City of Yuba City General Plan. Adopted April 8, 2004.
Yuba City General Plan, 2004 Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2001072105).
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba-Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995. “Determination of 1-in-200 Year Floodplain for Yuba City Urban Level of Flood Protection Determination,” prepared for Yuba City by MBK Engineers, November 2015.
Sutter County General Plan.
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) CEQA Significance Thresholds.
Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
90 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, April 1994.
Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Sept. 2010.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Updated September 7, 2011. Available at
http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
91 Appendix A
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway
Career Technical Building
By
W-Trans
Balancing Functionality and Livability since 1995
w-trans.com
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
April 11, 2024
Prepared for the City of Yuba City
Submitted by
W-Trans
Transportation Impact Study for the
Harter Parkway Career Technical Building
(i;\
~-Trans
~
W-Trans
This page intentionally left blank
i Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Transportation Setting .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Data ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Circulation System............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).......................................................................................................................................11 Safety Issues..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Emergency Access.......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Capacity Analysis............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................................................................31 Study Participants and References.............................................................................................................................32 Figures
1. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations............................................................................................................... 3
2. Site Plan.................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Existing Traffic Volumes.....................................................................................................................................................22
4. Future Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................................................................................24
5. Project Traffic Volumes and Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................26
6. Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................................................27
7. Future plus Project Traffic Volumes................................................................................................................................29 Tables
1. Trip Generation Summary................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Trip Distribution Assumptions........................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Bicycle Facility Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
4. Maximum/95th Percentile Queues in Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections...............................................14
5. 95th Percentile Queues in Turn Lanes at Signalized Intersections.........................................................................16
6. Intersection Level of Service Criteria..............................................................................................................................20
7. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service......................................................................................................21
8. Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................23
9. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service......................................................28
10. Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service...........................................................30
ii Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Appendices
A. Intersection Queueing Calculations
B. Intersection Level of Service Calculations
C. Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheets
1 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Executive Summary
The proposed project would result in the construction of a 35,717-square-foot educational facility on the east side of Harter Parkway south of the extension of Spirit Drive in the City of Yuba City. The project would be expected to generate an average of 643 daily trips, including 66 morning peak hour trips and 59 evening peak hour trips.
Existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the vicinity of the project site are adequate. The project site plan includes paths connecting to the existing pedestrian network and the provision of 22 bicycle parking spaces, which would be sufficient to meet the City’s requirements for a building with 171 parking spaces. No demonstrated pattern of pedestrian collisions at the intersections studied could be identified. While the three bicycle collisions reported at the study intersections were attributed to the bicyclist, the City may wish to enhance the bicycle facilities on north/south streets at intersections with Highway 20 to address issues associated with two of the three reported collisions as well as difficulties crossing Highway 20 noted in the Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan.
The proposed project would not be expected to directly increase the number of prospective students seeking career training; instead, it would be expected to redistribute where students enroll and introduce a more convenient option for nearby residents, resulting in shifts in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) but not an increase.
Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the proposed facility as a local-serving public facility as has been done in other jurisdictions and conclude that the project may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on student VMT. The project’s impact on employee VMT is also expected to be less-than-significant as the project falls into an area with an employee VMT of 50 to 85 percent of the regional average value according to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) screening map.
Site access would occur via the end of the extension of Spirit Drive, via connection to the parking area for the existing school district facilities on Klamath Lane, and via a connection to the parking area for 855 Harter Parkway.
Sight distances to and from the proposed east leg of Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive are adequate for entering and exiting drivers. Left-turn lanes would not be needed at any of the entrances to the project site. Project traffic is not expected to cause maximum queues to exceed the available stacking space at any of the study intersections and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on queueing.
Proposed site access and on-site circulation are anticipated to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles. Traffic from the proposed development would be expected to have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response times.
The study intersections currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) and would be expected to continue doing so with the addition of project trips to existing volumes. Under projected future volumes and with the planned modifications to the roadway network indicated in the El Margarita Master Plan and Yuba City General Plan, seven of the ten study intersections are expected to operate acceptably with and without project traffic.
While Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane and Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive would operate deficiently under Future and Future plus Project conditions, the expected increase in average delay due to project traffic would be less than five seconds, which is considered acceptable. The intersection of North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard would be anticipated to operate acceptably under Future and Future plus Project volumes upon installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound approach, as is recommended for conditions without the project.
2 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential transportation impacts and adverse operational effects that would be associated with development of a proposed educational facility to be located on the east side of Harter Parkway south of the extension of Spirit Drive in the City of Yuba City. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City, reflects a scope of work requested by City staff, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Prelude
The purpose of a transportation impact study (TIS) is to provide City staff and policy makers with data that they can use to make an informed decision regarding the potential transportation impacts of a proposed project, and any associated improvements that would be required to mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level under CEQA, the City’s General Plan, or other policies. This report provides an analysis of those items that are identified as areas of environmental concern under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that, if significant, require an EIR. Impacts associated with access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit; the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project; potential safety concerns such as increased queuing in dedicated turn lanes, adequacy of sight distance, need for turn lanes, and need for additional right-of-way controls; and emergency access are addressed in the context of the CEQA criteria. While no longer a part of the CEQA review process, vehicular traffic service levels at key intersections were evaluated for consistency with General Plan policies by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the effect the new traffic would be expected to have on the study intersections and need for improvements to maintain acceptable operation.
Applied Standards and Criteria
The report is organized to provide background data that supports the various aspects of the analysis, followed by the assessment of CEQA issues and then evaluation of policy-related issues. The CEQA criteria evaluated are as follows.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Project Profile
The project as proposed includes 35,717 square feet of building space that would house 21 classrooms, conference rooms, and office space for technical instruction. A staff of 44 is anticipated to serve a student population of 304. The project site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive and would include construction of an easterly extension of Spirit Drive, terminating in a cul-de-sac approximately midway through the site. The location of the project site is shown in Figure 1.
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project 20 Figure 1 – Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations I
SpiritWy
LEGEND
e Study Intersection
yci 08.ai 04/23
~
~-Trans
4 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Transportation Setting
Study Area and Periods
The study area varies depending on the topic. For pedestrian trips it consists of all streets within a half-mile of the project site that would lie along primary routes of pedestrian travel, or those leading to nearby generators. For bicycle trips it consists of all streets within one mile of the project site that would lie along primary routes of bicycle travel. For the safety and operational analyses, it consists of the project frontage and driveways and the following intersections:
1. Highway 20/El Margarita Road
2. Highway 20/Harter Parkway
3. Highway 20/Tharp Road
4. Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane
5. El Margarita Road/Spirit Drive
6. Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive
7. Harter Parkway/Lassen Boulevard
8. Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard
9. North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard
10. El Margarita Road/Franklin Road
Operating conditions during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network.
The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute. Counts were obtained for the study intersections on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, during clear weather and while local schools were in session.
Study Intersections
Highway 20/El Margarita Road is an unsignalized tee intersection with stop control on the northbound terminating El Margarita Road approach. The intersection has a northbound flared right-turn lane with space to store approximately two vehicles.
Highway 20/Harter Parkway is a signalized four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches and right-turn overlap phasing on the southbound and westbound approaches. There are marked crosswalks on all legs and a southbound bicycle lane on the south leg.
Highway 20/Tharp Road is a signalized four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing for both Highway 20 and Tharp Road. The intersection is currently under construction for pedestrian improvements including crosswalks and curb ramps.
Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane is a signalized four-legged intersection with protected leftturn phasing on all four approaches. There are marked high-visibility crosswalks across all legs and curb ramps on each corner.
El Margarita Road/Spirit Drive is an unsignalized tee intersection that is stop-controlled on the westbound terminating Spirit Drive approach. High-visibility crosswalks are striped across all legs, and there are bicycle lanes on the east leg.
Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive is a four-legged intersection with all-way stop control and high-visibility crosswalks across all legs. Bicycle lanes are marked on the north, south, and west legs, while the east leg terminates immediately east of the intersection and would be extended with the proposed project.
5 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Harter Parkway/Lassen Boulevard is an all-way stop-controlled tee intersection with high-visibility ladder-style crosswalk markings on all legs. There are bicycle lanes on the north and east legs.
Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard is a four-legged, all-way stop-controlled intersection with marked crosswalks across all four legs. Bicycle lanes are provided on Lassen Boulevard.
North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard is an unsignalized tee intersection with the eastbound Lassen Boulevard approach stop-controlled. There is a marked crosswalk across the west leg and bicycle lanes are striped on all legs.
El Margarita Road/Franklin Road is an unsignalized tee intersection with a stop control on the southbound terminating El Margarita Road approach. A flared right-turn lane with storage space for approximately two vehicles is available on the southbound approach. Bicycle lanes are marked on Franklin Road in both directions.
The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1.
6 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Project Data
The proposed project is an educational facility for technical career training. It consists of a 35,717 square-foot building with 21 classrooms as well as conference rooms and office space for instructors. It is expected to have 44 staff members and up to 304 students. As part of the project, Spirit Drive would be extended west from its current terminus at Harter Parkway and provide access to the project site. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. As there are no rates for this specific land use, those for a Junior/Community College (LU #540) were applied as this description most closely matches the proposed project. Based on the application of these rates, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 643 trips per day, including 66 a.m. peak hour trips and 59 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Career Tech Building 44 emp 14.61 643 1.49 66 50 16 1.34 59 29 30 Note: Tech = Technical; emp = employees
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the surrounding street network was determined based on existing turning movement counts collected at the study intersections as well as consideration of anticipated travel paths for project patrons. The project would be accessible from Spirit Drive, which would be the main entrance, as well as from Klamath Lane and Lassen Boulevard since the project site would be connected to the existing school district facilities on Klamath Lane and the property to the south on Lassen Boulevard. As a result, project trips were assigned to all three access points. The applied trip distribution assumptions, which were developed with input from City staff, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Via Spirit
Dr Access
Percent
Via Klamath
Ln Access
Percent
Via Lassen
Blvd Access
Percent
Total Percent
To/From Hwy 20 West of El Margarita Rd 15 0 0 15
To/From Harter Pkwy North of Hwy 20 7 0 0 7
To/From Tharp Rd North of Hwy 20 4 3 0 7
To/From Stabler Ln North of Hwy 20 8 2 2 12
To/From Hwy 20 East of Stabler Ln 20 7 3 30
To/From Tharp Rd South of Lassen Blvd 0 2 4 6
To/From N. Walton Ave South of Lassen Blvd 0 4 11 15
To/From Franklin Rd West of El Margarita Rd 5 0 0 5
To/From Franklin Rd East of El Margarita Rd 3 0 0 3
TOTAL 62 18 20 100
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Figure 2 – Site Plan
•
,- 9 ------------------------------------------, ~ ~"-t:::== === = = ~ = =.,,___ I I I I I -------~-----1---------- ,
I
I
I
I
I [iJ II : =~~=~== 'c.:E)I, ~ t ---,es-::1'1,'-----
1[!] I
I
I
~1•-';;B;--
1 I • • • ~ ---~-.------~------.-----~ • • ,--1 . [1 I , I ~ I C!!J I I >.< I FUTURE : -~ I ----- '):_ 1---------~-------------------------~ ------------- @ -~ 1§7 r T
•
~ I NEW SITE PL~ I
Source: Nichols, Melburg, & Rossotto Architects+ Engineers 6/ 21 7711N.-.&.b100 T-CIJ,CA9!1Wl
(530)"71-21M1 (1DC1)1174-<11•1FAA
.,~;::;:;::;;;;===• Copyljgl'll() --- 21l23
. =..:.::::::-.::-i;:---.:...~.
,============•
_..,...
........ ~ .. .,.. .... ,.,,. __ . . ,_
C.AAEERTRAINING
CENTER
~# rl~Wc"~c:I!
1-WUERPN't'Jf/AY
'IUIIICITY,CALIFQRNIA
OVERALL
NEW SITE PLAN
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
NOTFQACONSTl'P-'CTION
-~- _.., KRMlNIICSI.
--- -1"•20"-4"
l"n>jod.No. 2J-20ZI
■ !lliEETtlo. ■
A010
yci008.ai
Notto Scale
04/23
~
~-Trans
8 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Circulation System
This section addresses the first transportation bullet point on the CEQA checklist, which relates to the potential for a project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a continuous network of sidewalks with streetlighting, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of the proposed project site; however, sidewalk gaps can be found on the north side of Spirit Drive along the undeveloped parcel 700 feet west of the project site, as well as on the west side of Harter Parkway north of Highway 20.
Pedestrian Safety
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue for pedestrians. Collision records available from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports were reviewed for the most current five-year period available at the time of this analysis, which was August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2021. During the five-year study period there were two reported collisions with pedestrians at the study intersections: one collision at Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive and one collision at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard.
At Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive, the collision involved two pedestrians crossing west within a crosswalk and a driver proceeding north after stopping. The collision was attributed to unsafe starting or backing and resulted in injury for the two pedestrians. Since the collision occurred in 2017 high-visibility crosswalks have been striped at the intersection replacing the previous basic parallel-line crosswalks. The collision at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard involved a driver turning right and a pedestrian crossing Lassen Boulevard in the crosswalk. No party was assigned fault and the primary collision factor was reported to be unknown.
Given that no more than a single pedestrian-related collision occurred at any study intersection within a five-year period, no trends could be identified that would indicate a demonstrated safety issue for pedestrians within the vicinity of the project site.
Project Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of the site to commercial uses north of Highway 20, residences to the south, and to River Valley High School, it is reasonable to assume that some project students and employees will want to walk between the project site and these uses. The project site plan identifies two pedestrian paths with crosswalks across internal circulation roadways to connect the existing sidewalk on Harter Parkway and the project building.
The existing pedestrian network on surrounding roadways consisting of sidewalks, crosswalks, and street lighting would adequately connect the project site to nearby uses.
Finding – Pedestrian facilities serving the project site and on-site facilities would be adequate.
Bicycle Facilities
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2020, classifies bikeways into four categories:
9 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
• Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
• Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
• Class IV Bikeway – also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Harter Parkway, Spirit Drive, Lassen Boulevard, North Walton Avenue, Stabler Lane, Bridge Street, and Sunsweet Boulevard. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 3 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as contained in the Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan, Yuba City Public Works, 2011.
Table 3 – Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Facility
Class Length
(miles)
Begin Point End Point
Existing
Harter Pkwy II 0.23 Hwy 20 Lassen Blvd
Spirit Dr II 0.35 El Margarita Rd Harter Pkwy
Lassen Blvd II 0.60 Harter Pkwy N. Walton Ave
N. Walton Ave II 0.60 Sam’s Club Anneka Ln
Stabler Ln II 1.31 Starr Dr Jamie Dr
Bridge St II 0.23 Tharp Rd N. Walton Ave
Sunsweet Blvd II 0.51 N. Walton Ave Hwy 99
Planned
Railroad Right-of-Way Bike Path I 2.93 Hooper Rd Bridge St Harter Pkwy II 0.65 Hwy 20 Butte House Rd
Tharp Rd II 1.17 Butte House Rd Bridge St
Walton Ave II 2.98 Hwy 20 Bogue Rd
Bridge St II 2.02 N. Walton Ave Second St
El Margarita Rd II 0.98 S. Colusa Frontage Rd Franklin Rd N. Colusa Frontage Rd II 1.58 Western Pkwy Harter Pkwy
S. Colusa Frontage Rd II 0.50 George Washington Blvd El Margarita Rd Poole Blvd III 0.49 Civic Center Blvd Tharp Rd
Source: Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan, Yuba City Public Works, 2011 Bicyclist Safety
Collision records for the study area were reviewed to determine if there had been any bicyclist-involved crashes.
During the same five-year study period previously described, there were three reported collisions involving bicyclists at the study intersections: one collision each at Highway 20/Harter Parkway, Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane, and Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard.
The collision at Highway 20/Harter Parkway was a broadside collision that occurred at night and involved a westbound through-moving driver and southbound through-moving bicyclist. The primary collision factor was reported to be a traffic signals and signs violation and the bicyclist was noted to be at fault. The collision at Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane was also a broadside collision, and it involved a southbound
10 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
through-moving bicyclist and right-turning driver. The primary collision factor was marked as unknown and the bicyclist was recorded to be at fault. At Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard, the collision included a northbound bicyclist and westbound driver both traveling straight, and the collision was attributed to a right-of-way violation by the bicyclist. Given that the bicyclists were found to be at fault in all three collisions, no remedial actions appear necessary, though the City may wish to consider enhancing bicycle facilities on north/south streets at intersections with Highway 20 to address the aforementioned collisions as well as difficulties crossing Highway 20 as noted in the Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan.
Project Impacts on Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle facilities together with shared use of minor streets provide adequate access for bicyclists within the vicinity of the project site. Connectivity would be further improved upon completion of planned facilities outlined in the City’s bicycle plan such as the Class I multi-use trail along the railroad right-of-way east of Hooper Road.
Bicycle Storage
The Yuba City Municipal Code, Section 8-5.6017 states that trade schools, business colleges, and commercial schools must provide secure bicycle parking at a rate of ten percent of the total required automobile parking. The project site plan notes that eight two-bicycle-capacity racks and three two-bicycle-capacity lockers would be installed, which is a total of 22 bicycle parking spaces. As 124 student parking spaces and 47 staff parking spaces would be provided, or 171 total parking spaces, a minimum of 18 spaces are required and the proposed supply of 22 bicycle parking spaces would be sufficient to meet the City’s requirement.
Finding – Off-site bicycle facilities serving the project site are adequate, and the proposed bicycle parking supply is adequate.
Transit Facilities
Existing Transit Facilities
Yuba-Sutter Transit provides fixed route bus service in Yuba City and throughout Sutter County. Yuba-Sutter Transit Route 1 provides service to Central Yuba City, Marysville Amtrak, and Yuba College. Route 1 operates with 30-minute headways between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on Saturday. Route 5 provides service to destinations in South and North Yuba City via Walton Avenue. Route 5 operates with one-hour headways between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on Saturday. Neither route operates on Sundays. The nearest transit stop to the project site is located at Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive about 200 feet north of the project site.
Two bicycles can be carried on most Yuba-Sutter Transit buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis.
Additional bicycles are allowed on Yuba-Sutter Transit buses at the discretion of the driver.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. Yuba-Sutter Transit’s ADA Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Yuba and Sutter Counties.
Finding – Transit facilities serving the project site are adequate.
Significance Finding – The proposed project would not conflict with any plans or policies for transportation facilities and would provide adequate on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It would therefore have a less-thansignificant impact on these facilities.
11 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) was evaluated based the project’s anticipated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Background and Guidance
Senate Bill (SB) 743 established VMT as the metric to be applied for determining transportation impacts associated with development projects. Project-related VMT impacts were assessed based on guidance provided by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018, as well as information contained within the SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for the City of Yuba City, Fehr & Peers, 2020. Many of the recommendations in the City’s Implementation Guidelines are consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory. As indicated in these documents, each component of the proposed project was assessed individually considering both students and employees.
Student VMT
The OPR Technical Advisory provides recommended VMT significance thresholds for residential, office, and retail land use categories. OPR does not specifically address schools as a land use type, indicating that lead agencies may develop their own thresholds for other land uses, and also allowing assessment on a case-by-case basis. Like the Technical Advisory, the City’s Implementation Guidelines do not contain specific thresholds for educational land uses and instead state that schools and colleges should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis while applying the general intent of the Technical Advisory and other available information. Several jurisdictions have established that local-serving public facilities may be presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact, applying the same justification as established for local-serving retail uses in the Technical Advisory, wherein it may be presumed that such uses typically generate few new trips within a region; rather, they tend to redistribute trips that are already occurring.
While career technical facilities do serve a larger geographic area than grade schools with some trips extending long distances to the broader region, construction of the proposed career technical facility would be unlikely to increase the overall number of prospective students seeking career training. Instead, it would be expected to redistribute where students enroll and introduce a more convenient option for students who live in the area, resulting in VMT shifts but not necessarily VMT increases. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the proposed career technical building as a local-serving public facility as has been done in other jurisdictions and conclude that student VMT may generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation-related VMT impact.
Finding – The proposed project would reasonably be classified as local-serving with a less-than-significant impact on student VMT.
Employee VMT
VMT impacts associated with employees of the proposed project were assessed based on guidance contained in both the Technical Advisory and the City’s Implementation Guidelines, which indicate than an employee-based project generating vehicle travel that is 15 or more percent below the existing average VMT per worker may indicate a less-than-significant VMT impact. OPR encourages the use of screening maps to establish geographic areas that achieve the 15 percent below regional average thresholds, allowing jurisdictions to “screen” projects in those areas from quantitative VMT analysis since impacts can be presumed to be less than significant.
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) developed a screening map for the six county Sacramento Region that can be used to screen employment-based projects that are located in low-VMT generating areas. The map uses data from the SACOG travel demand model, which is an activity/tour-based model designed to estimate per person daily travel accounting for land use, transportation, and demographics that influence travel behaviors.
12 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
The VMT screening map uses HEX geography zones where the work-based VMT per employee is calculated by tallying all the work-based VMT in the HEX and dividing by the total jobs in the HEX. The VMT for each HEX is then compared to the regional average value and classified into groups of less than 50 percent of the regional average, 50 to 85 percent, 85 to 100 percent, 100 to 115 percent, 115 to 150 percent, and greater than 150 percent. The Harter Parkway Career Technical Building site falls within a screened area with an employee VMT of 50 to 85 percent of the regional average value indicating that employee VMT may be presumed to have a less-thansignificant impact.
Finding – The employees of the proposed project would be expected to generate 50 to 85 percent of the regional average employee VMT and would therefore be expected to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
Significance Finding – The proposed project would be expected to result in a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
13 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Safety Issues
The potential for the project to impact safety was evaluated in terms of the adequacy of sight distance and need for turn lanes at the project accesses as well as the adequacy of stacking space in dedicated turn lanes at the study intersections to accommodate additional queuing due to adding project-generated trips and need for additional right-of-way controls. This section addresses the third transportation bullet on the CEQA checklist which is whether or not the project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Site Access
The project site would be accessed via an extension of Spirit Drive that would be constructed to the east of Harter Parkway, via a connection to the parking area for the existing school district facilities on Klamath Lane, and via a connection to the parking area for 855 Harter Parkway which is accessible from Lassen Boulevard or Harter Parkway. It is also noted on the project site plan that a future connection to the Feather River Academy parking area on Lassen Boulevard could be constructed. The project site would not connect to Spirit Drive via a driveway; rather, Spirit Drive would narrow east of Harter Parkway and become the primary circulation road through the project site.
Sight Distance
Sight distances to and from the proposed east leg of the Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive intersection were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distance at intersections of public streets is typically based on corner sight distances; however, because the Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive intersection is all-way stop-controlled sight lines are only needed from each approach to a vehicle stopped at the other three approaches. Sight lines were measured from the position of a driver stopped on the proposed westbound approach and were determined to be clear to each of the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches of the intersection. Although not required, consideration was given to the available stopping sight distance on each approach in the case of an errant stop sign violation and it was determined that sight lines extend more than 250 feet from the westbound approach to the north and south on Harter Parkway and to the west on Spirit Drive which would be adequate stopping sight distance for speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour (mph). As a result, existing sight lines are adequate to accommodate all turns into and out of the proposed east leg of the Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive intersection.
Finding – Available sight lines are adequate to accommodate all turns into and out of the proposed east leg of the all-way stop-controlled Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive intersection.
Access Analysis
The proposed project would take access at the end of a new extension of Spirit Drive and through the parking lots to the adjacent school district facilities on Klamath Lane and 855 Harter Parkway office building. As no turning movements would be necessary for inbound drivers on the extension of Spirit Drive and an existing two-way leftturn lane (TWLTL) exists at the entrance to the 855 Harter Parkway office building from Lassen Boulevard, the provision of any new turn lanes would not be necessary at the entrances on Sprit Drive or Lassen Boulevard. A leftturn lane on Klamath Lane would not be appropriate as Klamath Lane is a local street presumably serving minimal through traffic that would conflict with left-turning vehicles; further, the project is expected to result in minimal new trips at the Klamath Lane driveways.
Queuing
The City of Yuba City does not prescribe thresholds of significance regarding queue lengths. However, an increase in queue length due to project traffic was considered a potentially significant impact if the increase would cause the queue to extend out of a dedicated turn lane into a through traffic lane, or the back of queue into a visually restricted area, such as a blind corner. If queues would already be expected to extend past a dedicated turn lane
14 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
or into a visually restricted area without project traffic, the addition of project traffic was considered to constitute a potentially significant impact only if it would cause a new unacceptable condition; in other words, if the queue were already beyond the turn lane and the project would cause it to stack into an adjacent intersection or a visually restricted area, and that would not occur without the project, that would be considered an impact.
Unsignalized Intersection(s)
Queue lengths in dedicated turn lanes at two-way stop-controlled intersections were determined using a methodology contained in “Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections,” John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001. Maximum queues in vehicles were converted into queue length in feet by multiplying the typical storage length occupied by a passenger car, or 25 feet. Queues for the study intersections with stop signs on all approaches were analyzed using Synchro software, which returns a 95th percentile queue length for each intersection approach lane in number of vehicles. The predicted queue lengths for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 4. Queueing calculations for the two-way stop-controlled study intersections are provided in Appendix A and queueing calculations for the all-way stop-controlled study intersections are included with Appendix B.
Table 4 – Maximum/95th Percentile Queues in Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections Study Intersection
Approach
Available
Storage
Maximum/95th Percentile Queues
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
E E+P F F+P E E+P F F+P
1. Hwy 20/El Margarita Rd*
WB Left Turn 225 175 175 - - 75 75 - -
5. El Margarita Rd/Spirit Dr
SB Left Turn 110 75 75 125 125 50 50 50 50
WB Left Turn 150** 150 150 225 225 100 100 125 125
6. Harter Pkwy/Spirit Dr
NB Left Turn 100 53 55 195 205 8 10 18 18
SB Left Turn 100 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 3
EB Left Turn 180** 68 73 285 293 10 10 18 18
7. Harter Pkwy/Lassen Blvd
SB Left Turn 100 33 33 80 80 13 13 25 25
WB Left Turn 100** 3 3 5 5 0 0 0 0
8. Tharp Rd/Lassen Blvd
NB Left Turn 150** 25 25 68 73 10 10 23 25
SB Left Turn 160** 8 8 20 20 20 23 58 60
EB Left Turn 150** 18 18 40 43 8 8 20 20
WB Left Turn 150** 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 8
9. N. Walton Ave/Lassen Blvd
NB Left Turn 200** 150 150 275 300 125 125 250 275
EB Right Turn 125 150 150 225 225 200 200 300 300
Notes: Maximum queues at two-way stop-controlled intersection based on methodology from “Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections”; 95th percentile queues at all-way stop-controlled intersections based on HCM 6th Edition methodology; E = existing conditions; E+P = existing plus project conditions; F = future conditions; F+P = future plus project conditions; * = intersection assumed to be signalized under future conditions; ** = two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) provides additional storage; Bold text = queue length exceeds available storage
15 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Under existing volumes, maximum queues were determined to exceed the available storage space in the eastbound right-turn lane at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Under Future conditions and assuming completion of the infrastructure projects noted in the “Capacity Analysis” section, queues are expected to extend beyond the storage space in the southbound left-turn lane at El Margarita Road/Spirit Drive during the a.m. peak hour, the northbound left-turn lane at Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive during the a.m. peak hour, and the eastbound right-turn lane at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard during both peak hours. Queues at several locations are projected to spill back into existing two-way left-turn lanes and, as a result, would not conflict with through traffic. As adverse queueing conditions under Existing and Future conditions at unsignalized intersections would not be a result of adding project traffic, and the addition of project traffic would not result in any new adverse queuing conditions, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.
Signalized Intersection(s)
Under each scenario, the projected 95th percentile queues in dedicated turn pockets at the signalized study intersections were determined using Synchro. Summarized in Table 5 are the predicted queue lengths for signalized intersections. Copies of the Synchro projections are contained in Appendix A.
16 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Table 5 – 95th Percentile Queues in Turn Lanes at Signalized Intersections Study Intersection
Approach
Available
Storage
95th Percentile Queues
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
E E+P F F+P E E+P F F+P
1. Hwy 20/El Margarita Rd*
NB Right Turn 90 - - 71 71 - - 73 73
WB Left Turn 225 - - 363 363 - - 128 128
2. Hwy 20/Harter Pkwy
NB Left Turn 185 35 37 46 49 50 53 87 92
NB Right Turn 200 40 41 82 86 31 38 62 67
SB Left Turn 500 61 62 127 127 70 70 151 151
SB Right Turn 400 31 31 139 139 33 33 144 144
EB Left Turn 600 100 100 201 201 144 144 334 334
EB Right Turn 550 8 15 36 39 0 0 12 15
WB Left Turn 525 113 122 227 240 28 36 33 43
WB Right Turn 550 30 30 43 43 120 121 154 156
3. Hwy 20/Tharp Rd
NB Left Turn 150 96 96 224 224 156 157 279 279
NB Right Turn*** 150 - - 67 67 - - 288 290
SB Left Turn 150 77 77 156 156 180 181 368 368
EB Left Turn 250 82 84 130 131 73 76 127 128
EB Right Turn 85 63 63 97 97 69 70 101 101
WB Left Turn 175** 252 261 535 547 171 175 358 365
4. Hwy 20/N Walton Ave-Stabler Ln
NB Left Turn 150 79 80 122 122 115 116 261 261
NB Right Turn 350 50 50 77 77 58 58 146 146
SB Left Turn 100 66 67 90 90 96 97 157 157
EB Left Turn 200** 128 132 242 247 163 167 344 352
EB Right Turn*** 200 45 45 - - 78 79 - -
WB Left Turn 230** 104 104 192 192 145 145 317 317
WB Right Turn 300 50 50 73 73 52 52 156 157
9. N. Walton Ave/Lassen Blvd*
NB Left Turn 200** - - 769 784 - - 448 454
EB Right Turn 125 - - 78 78 - - 242 250
Notes: 95th percentile queue based on Synchro output; all distances are measured in feet; E = existing conditions; E+P = existing plus project conditions; F = future conditions; F+P = future plus project conditions; * = intersection analyzed with a traffic signal under future conditions; ** = two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) provides additional storage; *** = dedicated turn lane assumed to be added or converted into a shared through/turn lane under future conditions; Bold text = queue length exceeds available storage
Under Existing Conditions, the left-turn queues on the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection of Highway 20/Tharp Road exceed storage capacity during the p.m. peak hour. Additionally, the westbound left-turn queue at Highway 20/Tharp Road exceeds storage capacity during the a.m. peak hour under Existing Conditions; however, as the queue spills back into an existing two-way left-turn lane, it does not impact through traffic. With Future volumes and assuming that the infrastructure projects noted in the ”Capacity Analysis” section are completed, 95th-percentile queues are projected to exceed the storage space in dedicated turn lanes
17 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
at Highway 20/El Margarita Road, Highway 20/Tharp Road, Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane, and North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard during one or more peak hours. Increases in queues beyond the available storage space at signalized intersections would not be a result of adding project traffic and therefore would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
Finding – The project would not cause any queues to exceed available storage that would not already be expected to exceed storage without project trips, and would therefore be expected to have a less-than-significant impact on queueing.
Significance Finding – The proposed project would not create any new hazards or introduce incompatible uses to the roadway system, so its impact on safety would be less than significant.
18 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Emergency Access
The final transportation bullet on the CEQA checklist requires an evaluation as to whether the project would result in inadequate emergency access or not.
Adequacy of Site Access
Emergency vehicles would be able to access the project site from multiple access points: the extension of Spirit Drive east from Harter Parkway, the connection to the parking lot for the nearby school district facilities on Klamath Lane, and the connection to the parking lot for the 855 Harter Parkway office building. As two of the three drive aisles into the project site already exist, they can be presumed to have been designed in accordance with City design standards.
According to the Yuba City Municipal Code, Section 8-5.6104, the minimum width of driveways is 24 feet for twoway traffic serving nine or more spaces. Additionally, California Fire Code (CFC) requires that fire access roads of at least 20 feet width and 13.5 feet vertical clearance be provided within 150 feet of all exterior building walls. The new interior drive aisles are anticipated to be designed in accordance with applicable design standards; therefore, site access and circulation are expected to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles. The fact that the site would have multiple access points would be considered a benefit for emergency access since responders would have alternative ways to reach the site should one of the driveways be compromised during an emergency.
Finding – Site access for emergency response vehicles would be adequate.
Off-Site Impacts
While the project would be expected to result in minor increases in delay for vehicles at the study intersections, emergency response vehicles have lights and sirens to bypass queued traffic and minimize the effects of intersection delay; therefore, the project would be expected to have a negligible impact on emergency response times.
Finding – The proposed project is expected to have a nominal effect on response times.
Significance Finding – The proposed project is anticipated to be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles and would not impede emergency responders, resulting in a less-than-significant impact on emergency response.
19 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the HCM 6th Edition, with the exception of the intersection of North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard which was analyzed using the unsignalized methodology from the HCM 2000 as the HCM 6th Edition is not able to evaluate two-way stop-controlled intersections with multiple dedicated turning lanes. These sources contain methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Levels of Service for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are unsignalized and have one or two approaches stop controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-Way Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. This methodology determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for the stop-controlled approaches together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection.
The study intersections with stop signs on all approaches were analyzed using the “All-Way Stop-Controlled” Intersection methodology from the HCM. This methodology evaluates delay for each approach based on turning movements, opposing and conflicting traffic volumes, and the number of lanes. Average vehicle delay is computed for the intersection as a whole and is then related to a Level of Service.
The study intersections that are currently or planned to be controlled by a traffic signal were evaluated using the signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity.
Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. Delays were calculated using actual signal timing parameters obtained from Caltrans staff.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 6.
20 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Table 6 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled All-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in
traffic are readily available for
drivers exiting the minor street.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Upon
stopping, drivers are immediately
able to proceed.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most
vehicles arrive during the green
phase, so do not stop at all.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in
traffic are somewhat less readily
available than with LOS A, but no
queuing occurs on the minor street.
Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Drivers
may wait for one or two vehicles to
clear the intersection before
proceeding from a stop.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A,
but many drivers still do not
have to stop.
C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds.
Acceptable gaps in traffic are less
frequent, and drivers may approach
while another vehicle is already
waiting to exit the side street.
Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Drivers will
enter a queue of one or two vehicles
on the same approach, and wait for
vehicle to clear from one or more
approaches prior to entering the
intersection.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The
number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many still
pass through without stopping.
D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are
fewer acceptable gaps in traffic,
and drivers may enter a queue of
one or two vehicles on the side
street.
Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. Queues of
more than two vehicles are
encountered on one or more
approaches.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The
influence of congestion is
noticeable, and most vehicles
have to stop.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few
acceptable gaps in traffic are
available, and longer queues may
form on the side street.
Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Longer
queues are encountered on more
than one approach to the
intersection.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most,
if not all, vehicles must stop and
drivers consider the delay
excessive.
F Delay of more than 50 seconds.
Drivers may wait for long periods
before there is an acceptable gap in
traffic for exiting the side streets,
creating long queues.
Delay of more than 50 seconds.
Drivers enter long queues on all
approaches.
Delay of more than 80 seconds.
Vehicles may wait through
more than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition Traffic Operation Standards
As outlined in Policy 5.2-1-12 of the Transportation section of the Yuba City General Plan, LOS D is considered the minimum acceptable operating standard for all major roadways and intersections in the City. This policy does not extend to residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) or bridges across the Feather River.
Exceptions to LOS D may be allowed by the City Council in certain areas, such as Downtown, where allowing a lower service level would result in clear benefit to the public.
Based on this Policy, the following criteria were applied in order to determine if the project would have an adverse effect on operation of the surrounding roadway network. • Project traffic would cause the LOS at a study intersection to degrade from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. This applies to the overall operation of signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections and to the minor-street approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections. • Project traffic would exacerbate the no-project LOS at a study intersection already operating at LOS E or F by increasing the average delay at a signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection by five seconds or more or the average delay on a side-street stop-controlled approach at an unsignalized intersection by five seconds or more.
21 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Volume data was collected on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, while local schools were in session.
Under Existing conditions, all study intersections operate acceptably at LOS C or better overall and on the minor street approaches. A summary of the intersection Level of Service calculations is contained in Table 7. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3, and copies of the calculations for all scenarios are provided in Appendix B.
Table 7 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Hwy 20/El Margarita Rd 4.0 A 1.8 A
Northbound (El Margarita Rd) Approach 23.3 C 15.0 C
2. Hwy 20/Harter Pkwy 18.6 B 16.3 B
3. Hwy 20/Tharp Rd 23.6 C 27.0 C
4. Hwy 20/N. Walton Ave-Stabler Ln 24.6 C 30.9 C
5. El Margarita Rd/Spirit Dr 5.2 A 3.3 A
Westbound (Spirit Dr) Approach 12.9 B 10.5 B
6. Harter Pkwy/Spirit Dr 15.0 B 8.6 A
7. Harter Pkwy/Lassen Blvd 9.6 A 7.8 A
8. Tharp Rd/Lassen Blvd 13.5 B 12.2 B
9. N. Walton Ave/Lassen Blvd 4.5 A 4.1 A
Eastbound (Lassen Blvd) Approach 14.9 B 21.8 C
10. El Margarita Rd/Franklin Rd 3.5 A 3.2 A
Southbound (El Margarita Rd) Approach 20.9 C 14.8 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Future Conditions
Daily segment volumes for the horizon year of 2040 were obtained from the City’s travel demand model and translated to peak hour turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections using a growth factor of
1.87. Project trips were subtracted from the Future volumes, as the City’s model assumes that the project site will already have been developed by 2040 per the land use type specified in the General Plan. The following infrastructure projects were assumed to be completed by 2040:
• Based on the El Margarita Master Plan, 2018, the intersection of Highway 20/El Margarita Road was assumed to be signalized under Future conditions, including protected left-turn phasing on Highway 20. A 90-footlong right-turn lane was added to the northbound El Margarita Road approach. • Tharp Road was modeled to be widened to four lanes north of Highway 20 in accordance with the Yuba City General Plan. The right-turn lane on the northbound approach lane was converted into a through lane, and a right-turn lane with a storage length of 150 feet was added. On the southbound approach, a second through lane was added.
• Per the Yuba City General Plan, Highway 20 was assumed to be widened to six lanes east of North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane. The right-turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection was converted into
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project 20 Figure 3 – Existing Traffic Volumes
214(80)
531(732)
(14)106
(783)737
1 173(28)
540(604)
119(264)
(42) 63
(672)676
(234)147
2 180(112)
697(759)
165(299)
(107)101
(671)713
(36) 43
3 157(222)
850(920)
174(187)
(170)104
(924)749
(111) 88
4 113(48)
99 (28)
5 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(40)147
(0)0
(63)237
6 26 (2)
240(197)
7 7 (17)
310(114)
80 (75)
(79) 74
(148)157
(43) 72
8 (263)193
(17) 11
9 209(206)
341(69)
(269)229
(34) 43
10 t...53 (33) I ...-4o5(829J
0 (182)366...J.
(680)497--.
t...30 (30)
~12(103)
+-40 (23)
f""315(167)
~
.
(8)32--. I (1)17--.
G
G
t...44(20)
+-70(190)
f""38(95)
t . .
~,1' ,,., 1., .
(155)167--.
G
(60) 37 ...J. t
(158)177--.
(93)127--.
t...1 (0)
+-151(93)
fl19(26)
(70) 75 .... I
(36)153--.
t...147(30)
+-222(144)
0 + i. n (2)
(54)167...J. t 0
(164)120--.
(0) 1--.
23 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
a shared through/right-turn lane, and the westbound approach to Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane was modeled to include one additional through lane. • Tharp Road is expected to be widened to four lanes south of Lassen Boulevard according to the Yuba City General Plan. A second through lane was added to the northbound approach, and the right-turn lane on the southbound approach was converted to a shared through/right-turn lane. • Per the El Margarita Master Plan, El Margarita Road/Franklin Road was modeled as a signalized intersection.
Franklin Road was also assumed to be widened to four lanes at El Margarita Road, including one additional through lane on each Franklin Road approach, in accordance with the Yuba City General Plan.
Under the anticipated Future volumes, and with the aforementioned infrastructure projects, seven of the ten study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better overall. The intersections of Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane, Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive, and North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard are expected to operate unacceptably during at least one peak hour. Operating conditions are summarized in Table 8, and future volumes are shown in Figure 4.
Table 8 – Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Hwy 20/El Margarita Rd 32.6 C 14.4 B
2. Hwy 20/Harter Pkwy 31.3 C 39.8 D
3. Hwy 20/Tharp Rd 39.2 D 50.0 D
4. Hwy 20/N. Walton Ave-Stabler Ln 37.3 D 76.0 E
5. El Margarita Rd/Spirit Dr 9.0 A 3.6 A
Westbound (Spirit Dr) Approach 25.0 D 11.7 B
6. Harter Pkwy/Spirit Dr 50.9 F 10.3 B
7. Harter Pkwy/Lassen Blvd 13.7 B 9.1 A
8. Tharp Rd/Lassen Blvd 32.3 D 18.9 C
9. N. Walton Ave/Lassen Blvd ** F ** F
Eastbound (Lassen Blvd) Approach ** F ** F
With Traffic Signal Control 30.0 C 42.1 D
10. El Margarita Rd/Franklin Rd 6.1 A 5.7 A
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; ** = delay greater than 120 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation; Shaded cells = conditions with recommended improvements Traffic Signal Warrants
Given the excessive delays calculated for the intersection of North Walton Boulevard/Lassen Boulevard, a signal warrant analysis was performed to determine potential need for a traffic signal to accommodate projected future volumes at the intersection.
Chapter 4C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) provides guidance on when a traffic signal should be considered. There are nine different warrants, or criteria, presented, as follows:
• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume
• Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5, School Crossing
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project 20 Figure 4 – Future Traffic Volumes
400(150)
991(1364)
(26) 198
(1461)1370
1 308 (43)
1010(1130)
223 (494)
(75) 110
(1257)1264
(438) 275
2 331 (206)
1290(1412)
309 (559)
(200) 189
(1248)1329
(66) 79
3 294 (415)
1575(1712)
325 (350)
(318) 195
(1721)1395
(205) 163
4 210(87)
185(52)
5 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(75)275
(0) 0
(118)443
6 49 (4)
449(368)
7 13 (32)
571(209)
150(140)
(146)137
(271)292
(79)134
8 (487)359
(31) 21
9 391(385)
636(128)
(503)428
(63) 77
10 t...98 (62)
. I ...-758(1551)
--D-----
(336)677 ...J.
( 1272)930--.
t...55 (54)
,
t
+-75 (43)
f"" 589(312)
~
.
(15)60--. I
(2)32--.
G
• t...80 (36)
+-131(355)
0 + t. f""71 (178)
t . .
~~J_
(9)~t
(290)312--.
(107) 67 ...J.
(294)330--.
( 165)232--.
t...279(286)
+-402(164)
fl50(176)
t
• t...2 (0)
+-282(174)
f""223(49)
(131)140--.I
(65)281 •
G
t...275(56)
+-415(269)
0 + t. f""0 (0)
(101)312...J. t 0
(307)224--.
(0) 2--.
25 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
• Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 7, Crash Experience
• Warrant 8, Roadway Network
• Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
For the purposes of this study the Peak Hour Volume Warrant, which determines the need for traffic control based on the highest volume hour of the day, was used as an initial indication of traffic control needs. The use of this signal warrant is common practice for planning studies. Other warrants, which are more generally applicable to existing traffic issues, require collection of traffic volumes for the highest four or eight hours of the day, review of the collision history, and evaluation of the system surrounding the location.
Under the Peak Hour Warrant the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach; or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. If the intersection is within a built-up area of an isolated community with a population over 10,000 or the posted, statutory, or critical speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, Figure 4C-4 may be used instead.
The Peak Hour Volume Warrant (particularly Condition B of the warrant) would be met for North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard with either existing or future volumes for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Copies of the signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix C.
Finding – The Peak Hour Volume Warrant for a traffic signal is met by existing volumes at the intersection of North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard, though it is noted that operation is currently accepted. The need for a traffic signal would be greater under the anticipated higher future volumes when delay would reach unacceptable levels.
Recommendation – It is recommended that the City plan for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard to accommodate buildout of the City’s General Plan. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound approach would be expected to improve operations to an acceptable level.
Project Conditions
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS C or better with no change or minor increases in delay. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5 and Existing plus Project volumes in Figure 6. These results are summarized in Table
9.
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project 20 Figure 5 – Project Traffic Volumes and Trip Distribution 2(5)
(4)8
1 16(9)
(4)8
2 14(8)
6 (3)
(7)5
(1)1
3 15(9)
(7)6
(3)2
4 1(3)
5 9(16)
1(3)
(2)5
6 7
9(4)
(2)1
(6)2
(1)1
8 (5)2
(2)0
9 2(1)
(1)3
10 e Study Intersection
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
- Trip Distribution
I
SpiritWy
3% •
i------'4m .. •
I
Project Site
sen Blv 1----- • 1---,1
yci 08.ai 04/23
~
~-Trans
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project 20 Figure 6 – Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes
214(80)
533(737)
(14)106
(787)745
1 189(37)
540(604)
119(264)
(46) 71
(672)676
(234)147
2 186(115)
711(767)
165(299)
(107)101
(678)718
(37) 44
3 157(222)
865(929)
174(187)
(170)104
(931)755
(114) 90
4 114(51)
99 (28)
5 0(0)
1(3)
9(16)
(40)147
(2) 5
(63)237
6 26 (2)
240(197)
7 7 (17)
319(118)
80 (75)
(81) 75
(154)159
(44) 73
8 (268)195
(18) 11
9 209(206)
343(70)
(269)229
(35) 46
10 t...54 (33) I ...-405(829)
0 (186)3743
(680)497--.
t...31 (32)
~12(104)
+-40 (23)
f""315(167)
~
.
(8)32--. I (1)17--.
G
G
t...46(21)
+-70(190)
f""38(95)
t . .
~,1' ,,., 1., .
(155)167--.
G
(65) 393 t
(160)178--. (102)133--.
t...1 (0)
+-151(93)
fl19(26)
(70) 75 .... I
(38)158--.
t...147(30)
+-222(144)
0 + i. f""29 (17)
(54)1673 t 0
(164)120--.
(0) 1--.
28 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Table 9 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing plus
Project Existing Existing plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Hwy 20/El Margarita Rd 4.0 A 4.0 A 1.8 A 1.8 A
NB (El Margarita Rd) Approach 23.3 C 23.6 C 15.0 C 15.1 C
2. Hwy 20/Harter Pkwy 18.6 B 18.8 B 16.3 B 16.6 B
3. Hwy 20/Tharp Rd 23.6 C 24.0 C 27.0 C 27.2 C
4. Hwy 20/N. Walton Ave-Stabler Ln 24.6 C 24.9 C 30.9 C 31.1 C
5. El Margarita Rd/Spirit Dr 5.2 A 5.2 A 3.3 A 3.4 A
WB (Spirit Dr) Approach 12.9 B 12.9 B 10.5 B 10.6 B
6. Harter Pkwy/Spirit Dr 15.0 B 15.2 C 8.6 A 8.8 A
7. Harter Pkwy/Lassen Blvd 9.6 A 9.6 A 7.8 A 7.8 A
8. Tharp Rd/Lassen Blvd 13.5 B 13.7 A 12.2 B 12.4 B
9. N. Walton Ave/Lassen Blvd 4.5 A 4.6 A 4.1 A 4.2 A
EB (Lassen Blvd) Approach 14.9 B 15.0 C 21.8 C 22.3 C
10. El Margarita Rd/Franklin Rd 3.5 A 3.6 A 3.2 A 3.2 A SB (E. Margarita Rd) Approach 20.9 C 21.2 C 14.8 B 14.8 A Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Finding – The study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably upon the addition of projectgenerated traffic to existing volumes.
Future plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated future volumes, and with the planned infrastructure projects, seven of the ten study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably. The volumes are shown in Figure 7, and the Future plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 10.
Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project 20 Figure 7 – Future plus Project Traffic Volumes
400(150)
993(1369)
(26) 198
(1465)1378
1 324 (52)
1010(1130)
223 (494)
(79) 118
(1257)1264
(438) 275
2 337 (209)
1304(1420)
309 (559)
(200) 189
(1255)1334
(67) 80
3 294 (415)
1590(1721)
325 (350)
(318) 195
(1728)1401
(208) 165
4 211(90)
185(52)
5 0(0)
1(3)
9(16)
(75)275
(2) 5
(118)443
6 49 (4)
449(368)
7 13 (32)
580(213)
150(140)
(148)138
(277)294
(80)135
8 (492)361
(32) 21
9 391(385)
638(129)
(503)428
(64) 80
10 t...99 (62)
. I ...-758(1551)
--D-----
(340)6853
( 1272)930--.
t...56 (56)
, t
+-75 (43)
f"" 589(312)
~
.
(15)60--. I
(2)32--.
G
• t...82 (37)
+-131(355)
0 + t. f""71 (178)
t . .
~~J_
(9)~t
(290)312--.
(112) 693
(296)331--. (174)238--.
t...279(286)
+-406(166)
fl50(176)
t
• t...2 (0)
+-282(174)
f""223(49)
(131)140--.I
(67)286--.
G
t...275(56)
+-415(269)
0 + t. f""28 (15)
(101)3123 t 0
(307)224--.
(0) 2--.
30 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Table 10 – Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Future Future plus
Project Future Future plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Hwy 20/El Margarita Rd 32.6 C 32.9 C 14.4 B 14.5 B
2. Hwy 20/Harter Pkwy 31.3 C 32.6 C 39.8 D 39.9 D
3. Hwy 20/Tharp Rd 39.2 D 39.9 D 50.0 D 50.6 D
4. Hwy 20/N. Walton Ave-Stabler Ln 37.3 D 37.8 D 76.0 E 76.7 E
5. El Margarita Rd/Spirit Dr 9.0 A 9.0 A 3.6 A 3.6 A
WB (Spirit Dr) Approach 25.0 D 25.2 D 11.7 B 11.7 B
6. Harter Pkwy/Spirit Dr 50.9 F 52.9 F 10.3 B 10.5 B
7. Harter Pkwy/Lassen Blvd 13.7 B 13.7 B 9.1 A 9.1 A
8. Tharp Rd/Lassen Blvd 32.3 D 34 D 18.9 C 19.2 C
9. N. Walton Ave/Lassen Blvd ** F ** F ** F ** F
EB (Lassen Blvd) Approach ** F ** F ** F ** F
With Traffic Signal Control 30.0 C 31.1 C 42.1 D 43.2 D
10. El Margarita Rd/Franklin Rd 6.1 A 6.1 A 5.7 A 5.7 A Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; ** = delay greater than 120 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation; Shaded cells = conditions with recommended improvements The intersections of Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane and Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive would continue operating unacceptably with the addition of project traffic; however, as the anticipated increases in overall delay at the two intersections would be less than five seconds, the project’s effect would be considered acceptable. With installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard, the intersection would operate acceptably without or with the addition of project trips.
Finding – The study intersections would either continue operating acceptably with the addition of project trips to the anticipated future volumes and with the planned infrastructure improvements, or project trips would result in a less than a five-second increase in delay, so the project’s effect on operations would be considered acceptable.
31 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• The project is expected to generate an average of 643 trips per day, including 66 a.m. peak hour trips and 59 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
• Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities serving the project site are adequate, and continuous pedestrian paths connecting the project site withHarter Parkway would be provided. The project would have a less-thansignificant impact in terms of plans and policies for these modes. • As the project would reasonably be classified as local-serving and is located in an area where employee-based VMT is less than 85 percent of the regional average, the proposed project would be expected to have a lessthan-significant transportation impact on VMT. • Sight lines at the new extension of Spirit Drive would be adequate. • The project would not cause queues to exceed the available stacking space in dedicated turn lanes at any of the study intersections that would not already exceed storage lengths without project traffic. • The Peak Hour Volume Warrant for a traffic signal is met at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under volumes for all scenarios. • Emergency access and circulation within the project sites would be adequate with incorporation of applicable design standards into site layout. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response times.
• Under Existing conditions, the study intersections operate acceptably under the City’s standards of LOS D or better overall without or with the addition of project trips. • Under projected future volumes and upon completion of planned infrastructure projects, including the recommended traffic signal at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard, the study intersections would operate acceptably without or with the addition of project traffic, except for the intersections of Harter Parkway/Spirit Drive and Highway 20/North Walton Avenue-Stabler Lane. While these two intersections would operate unacceptably, the project’s effect would be considered acceptable since it would result in fewer than five seconds of additional delay.
Recommendations
• The City may wish to consider installing a traffic signal with northbound protected left-turn phasing at North Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard to achieve acceptable operation under projected future volumes. This improvement would be needed without or with traffic from the proposed project.
32 Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building April 11, 2024
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge Dalene J. Whitlock, PE (Civil, Traffic), PTOE Associate Engineer Cameron Nye, PE (Traffic)
Assistant Engineer Nathan Sharafian, EIT
Graphics Cameron Wong
Editing/Formatting Jessica Bender
Quality Control Dalene J. Whitlock, PE (Civil, Traffic), PTOE References
“Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections,” ITE Journal, John T. Gard, November 2001 “Work VMT”, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations), California Building Standards Commission, 2022
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways Revision 6, California Department of Transportation, 2021
El Margarita Master Plan, Dennis Cook, Land Use Planning Consultant, 2018 Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2020 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018 SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for the City of Yuba City, Fehr & Peers, 2020 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2016-2021 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2018
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021 Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan, Yuba City Public Works, 2011 Yuba City General Plan, Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, 2004 Yuba City Municipal Code, Municipal Code Corporation, 2016 Yuba-Sutter Transit, http://www.yubasuttertransit.com/
YCI008
A Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project April 2024
Appendix A
Intersection Queueing Calculations
~
W-Trans
This page intentionally left blank
Lanes
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Side Street: Stop Controlled Legs:
214
Northbound
0 Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Maximum Queue Length
0 Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit:
0 El Margarita Road
Through Street:
Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs:
Scenario:
Southbound
2 Westbound
Highway 20
El Margarita Road North/South
AM Existing
Highway 20
-
-
-
106
737
0 Highway 20
Eastbound
Highway 20
0 0
0 mph
Highway 20
-
-
7 15
60 El Margarita Road
0 167
0 531
Northbound
Westbound
Eastbound
2 0
7 El Margarita Road
Southbound
Maximum Queues (veh) El Margarita Road
I
J
~
~ D @I®!!,@ ~ ~ .. 1c:£r ~I
1c==) ¢==J1
I~ ~I
~ D rP
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: Highway 20 Scenario: PM Existing
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 60 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: El Margarita Road Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
00 Highway 20
0 Westbound
Highway 20
0 0
783
Eastbound
732
14 80 Northbound
5 0 155
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
00 0
Westbound
--
- 3
27 El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 Highway 20Highway 20
- -
I
J
~ D ~ ~
~ ~ .. 1c:£r ~I
1c==) ¢==J1
I~ ~I
~ D rP
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: Highway 20 Scenario: AM Exsting plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 60 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: El Margarita Road Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
00 Highway 20
0 Westbound
Highway 20
0 0
745
Eastbound
533
106 214 Northbound
15 0 167
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
00 0
Westbound
--
- 7
27 El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 Highway 20Highway 20
- -
I
J
~ D ~ ~
~ ~ .. 1c:£r ~I
1c==) ¢==J1
I~ ~I
~ TI ~
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: Highway 20 Scenario: PM Existing plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 60 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: El Margarita Road Stop Controlled Legs: North/South Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
00 Highway 20
0 Westbound
Highway 20
0 0
787
Eastbound
737
14 80 Northbound
5 0 155
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
00 0
Westbound
--
- 3
27 El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
0 Highway 20Highway 20
- -
I
J
~ D ~ ~
~ ~ .. 1c:£r ~I
1c==) ¢==J1
I~ ~I
~ TI ~
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: AM Existing Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
1 151
Spirit Drive
119
Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 99
0 Eastbound
0 0 113 Northbound
0 75 153
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-3
-
Westbound
00 - 6
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: PM Existing Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
0 93
Spirit Drive
26 Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 28
0 Eastbound
0 0 48 Northbound
0 70 36
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-2
-
Westbound
00 - 4
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: AM Existing plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
1 151
Spirit Drive
119
Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 99
0 Eastbound
0 0 114 Northbound
0 75 158
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-3
-
Westbound
00 - 6
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: PM Existing plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
0 93
Spirit Drive
26 Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 28
0 Eastbound
0 0 51 Northbound
0 70 38
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-2
-
Westbound
00 - 4
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: AM Future
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
2 282
Spirit Drive
223
Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 185
0 Eastbound
0 0 210 Northbound
0 140 281
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-5
-
Westbound
00 - 9
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: PM Future
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
0 174
Spirit Drive
49 Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 52
0 Eastbound
0 0 87 Northbound
0 131 65
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-2
-
Westbound
00 - 5
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: AM Future plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
2 282
Spirit Drive
223
Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 185
0 Eastbound
0 0 210 Northbound
0 140 281
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-5
-
Westbound
00 - 9
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: El Margarita Road Scenario: PM Future plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 35 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 1
Side Street: Spirit Drive Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
0 174
Spirit Drive
49 Westbound
Spirit Drive
0 52
0 Eastbound
0 0 90 Northbound
0 131 67
El Margarita Road
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
El Margarita Road
-2
-
Westbound
00 - 5
--
El Margarita Road
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Spirit DriveSpirit Drive
0 0
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: AM Existing
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
53 405
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
11 0
0 Eastbound
0 193 0 Northbound
366 497 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 6 0
6-
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
2 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: PM Existing
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
33 829
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
17 0
0 Eastbound
0 263 0 Northbound
182 680 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 8 0
5-
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
2 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: AM Existing plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
54 405
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
11 0
0 Eastbound
0 195 0 Northbound
374 497 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 6 0
6-
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
2 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: PM Existing plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
33 829
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
18 0
0 Eastbound
0 268 0 Northbound
186 680 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 8 0
5-
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
2 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: AM Future
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
98 758
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
21 0
0 Eastbound
0 359 0 Northbound
677 930 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 9 0
11 -
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
2 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: PM Future
Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
62 1551
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
31 0
0 Eastbound
0 487 0 Northbound
336 1272 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 12 0
10 -
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
3 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: AM Future plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
99 758
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
21 0
0 Eastbound
0 361 0 Northbound
685 930 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 9 0
12 -
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
2 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Lanes
Maximum Queue Length
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
Through Street: N. Walton Avenue Scenario: PM Future plus Project Uncontrolled Legs Speed Limit: 45 mph
# Lanes on Uncontrolled Legs: 2
Side Street: Lassen Boulevard Stop Controlled Legs: East/West Volume Inputs (veh/hr)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
62 1551
Lassen Boulevard
0 Westbound
Lassen Boulevard
32 0
0 Eastbound
0 492 0 Northbound
340 1272 0
N. Walton Avenue
Maximum Queues (veh)
Southbound
N. Walton Avenue
--
-
Westbound
00 12 0
11 -
N. Walton Avenue
Source: John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001, "Estimating Maximum Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections"
Eastbound
Northbound
-
Lassen BoulevardLassen Boulevard
3 -
I
~
J D ~ ...
1cd}ij ~I
I~ ~I
I~ ~I
1J D Lr
I
_J<{b~_
1c=D: ~I
I
I=~ {§1 I
I~ ~I
'1Jif rr'
Queues
2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 173 795 74 204 635 140 44 208 149 94 255 175v/c Ratio 0.41 0.68 0.12 0.44 0.53 0.16 0.17 0.34 0.39 0.28 0.29 0.22Control Delay 40.2 28.1 2.1 39.6 24.5 3.2 44.8 32.0 8.7 42.5 27.9 3.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 40.2 28.1 2.1 39.6 24.5 3.2 44.8 32.0 8.7 42.5 27.9 3.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 153 0 41 113 0 9 43 0 19 52 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 342 8 113 261 30 35 91 40 61 105 31Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 921 2806 1278 921 2806 1132 691 1266 649 921 1492 1002Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.28 0.06 0.22 0.23 0.12 0.06 0.16 0.23 0.10 0.17 0.17Intersection Summary Queues3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 48 801 113 202 783 185 60 146 131 108 236v/c Ratio 0.28 0.73 0.21 0.64 0.52 0.25 0.35 0.40 0.32 0.34 0.57Control Delay 54.4 36.8 11.7 51.9 24.5 4.9 55.0 40.5 8.9 51.4 43.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 54.4 36.8 11.7 51.9 24.5 4.9 55.0 40.5 8.9 51.4 43.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 231 13 117 190 3 36 80 0 32 132Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 400 63 252 333 50 96 167 50 77 262Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 469 2065 946 469 2070 964 469 606 596 910 587Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.12 0.43 0.38 0.19 0.13 0.24 0.22 0.12 0.40Intersection Summary
Queues
4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 94 797 111 167 904 185 120 272 143 94 398v/c Ratio 0.43 0.68 0.19 0.41 0.70 0.27 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.25 0.57Control Delay 46.8 28.8 6.8 43.0 28.9 4.9 43.2 31.3 7.5 43.4 32.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 46.8 28.8 6.8 43.0 28.9 4.9 43.2 31.3 7.5 43.4 32.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 176 3 41 209 0 28 63 0 22 87Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 343 45 104 411 50 79 130 50 66 176Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 426 2134 982 828 2134 1028 828 1124 600 828 1091Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.37 0.11 0.20 0.42 0.18 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.36Intersection Summary Queues2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 263 755 47 31 679 297 67 178 104 106 100 172v/c Ratio 0.50 0.46 0.06 0.11 0.66 0.35 0.23 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.16 0.25Control Delay 36.7 18.0 0.1 42.1 28.9 7.3 41.5 29.5 6.6 39.8 27.2 3.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 36.7 18.0 0.1 42.1 28.9 7.3 41.5 29.5 6.6 39.8 27.2 3.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 90 0 6 127 23 13 36 0 21 19 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 309 0 28 314 120 50 81 31 70 48 33Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 968 2933 1331 968 2933 1105 726 1328 659 968 1562 870Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.03 0.23 0.27 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.20Intersection Summary
Queues
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 39 729 116 122 825 325 108 267 212 298 312v/c Ratio 0.25 0.72 0.23 0.54 0.60 0.41 0.50 0.64 0.41 0.59 0.68Control Delay 56.0 39.2 12.9 55.5 29.9 6.5 55.9 46.4 7.9 48.9 44.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 56.0 39.2 12.9 55.5 29.9 6.5 55.9 46.4 7.9 48.9 44.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 220 15 74 238 13 66 155 0 92 177Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 381 69 171 400 90 156 310 64 180 352Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 452 1988 926 452 1988 998 452 584 634 876 581Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.37 0.13 0.27 0.41 0.33 0.24 0.46 0.33 0.34 0.54Intersection Summary Queues4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 116 963 177 231 958 195 175 375 170 139 635v/c Ratio 0.56 0.82 0.29 0.58 0.82 0.30 0.49 0.41 0.32 0.42 0.73Control Delay 57.6 39.0 9.3 52.2 39.1 5.1 52.1 35.3 7.3 52.0 41.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 57.6 39.0 9.3 52.2 39.1 5.1 52.1 35.3 7.3 52.0 41.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 291 19 72 288 0 54 102 0 43 186Queue Length 95th (ft) 163 470 78 145 473 52 115 196 58 96 339Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 350 1760 843 680 1754 871 680 947 548 680 907Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.55 0.21 0.34 0.55 0.22 0.26 0.40 0.31 0.20 0.70Intersection Summary
Queues
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 1Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1568 400 991 28 312v/c Ratio 0.94 0.90 0.36 0.16 0.72Control Delay 32.3 55.0 3.0 33.7 14.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 32.3 55.0 3.0 33.7 14.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 344 182 48 13 0Queue Length 95th (ft) #557 #363 90 35 71Internal Link Dist (ft) 995 1882 734Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 90Base Capacity (vph) 1667 450 2795 242 486Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.89 0.35 0.12 0.64Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 275 1264 110 308 1010 223 67 330 232 150 402 279v/c Ratio 0.95 0.85 0.15 1.07 0.68 0.23 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.91 0.51 0.44Control Delay 83.2 30.3 4.7 110.8 24.3 2.9 49.6 30.4 12.4 93.4 30.5 16.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 83.2 30.3 4.7 110.8 24.3 2.9 49.6 30.4 12.4 93.4 30.5 16.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 280 0 ~83 201 0 17 80 26 39 99 80Queue Length 95th (ft) #201 #631 36 #227 #418 43 #46 114 82 #127 138 139Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 289 1494 734 289 1494 961 165 1665 820 165 1665 631Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 0.85 0.15 1.07 0.68 0.23 0.41 0.20 0.28 0.91 0.24 0.44Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 79 1329 189 331 1290 309 99 243 217 180 389v/c Ratio 0.54 0.90 0.26 0.94 0.68 0.33 0.92 0.45 0.51 0.76 0.68Control Delay 72.7 45.9 10.4 85.8 26.2 6.3 126.5 52.2 10.2 80.5 54.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 72.7 45.9 10.4 85.8 26.2 6.3 126.5 52.2 10.2 80.5 54.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 64 528 30 271 392 30 83 99 0 76 154Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 #831 97 #535 628 107 #224 140 67 #156 207Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 177 1471 724 354 1887 934 108 953 578 237 965Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.90 0.26 0.94 0.68 0.33 0.92 0.25 0.38 0.76 0.40Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 4Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 163 1590 294 1575 325 211 479 251 165 693v/c Ratio 0.87 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.44 0.65 0.54 0.45 0.51 0.78Control Delay 83.9 38.4 74.6 40.5 5.8 52.7 33.0 8.9 48.0 37.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 83.9 38.4 74.6 40.5 5.8 52.7 33.0 8.9 48.0 37.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 320 90 324 6 63 131 18 48 188Queue Length 95th (ft) #242 #503 #192 #506 73 #122 178 77 90 251Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 187 1756 326 1721 740 326 1272 705 326 1250Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.44 0.65 0.38 0.36 0.51 0.55Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 21 359 677 930 856v/c Ratio 0.06 0.74 0.84 0.33 0.82Control Delay 38.5 13.9 36.7 4.0 40.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 38.5 13.9 36.7 4.0 40.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 331 41 245Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 78 #769 188 #481Internal Link Dist (ft) 1228 576 1262Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 200Base Capacity (vph) 1053 727 841 2932 1073Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.49 0.80 0.32 0.80Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 6Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 505 1027 209 55v/c Ratio 0.36 0.51 0.38 0.10Control Delay 9.0 4.5 11.5 3.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 9.0 4.5 11.5 3.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 20 25 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 89 75 15Internal Link Dist (ft) 489 971 883Turn Bay Length (ft) 50Base Capacity (vph) 1745 2334 1348 1219Starvation Cap Reductn 0000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000Storage Cap Reductn 0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.44 0.16 0.05Intersection Summary
Queues
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 1Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1487 150 1364 9 290v/c Ratio 0.82 0.61 0.56 0.03 0.66Control Delay 18.2 38.0 5.7 20.4 13.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 18.2 38.0 5.7 20.4 13.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 207 48 83 3 14Queue Length 95th (ft) #399 #128 164 13 73Internal Link Dist (ft) 995 1882 734Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 90Base Capacity (vph) 1843 251 2652 386 536Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.60 0.51 0.02 0.54Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 438 1257 75 43 1130 494 107 294 165 176 164 286v/c Ratio 1.39 0.71 0.09 0.32 0.81 0.49 0.59 0.43 0.41 0.97 0.24 0.47Control Delay 222.5 21.2 1.7 47.8 27.9 6.1 54.7 28.8 11.4 103.2 26.6 16.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 222.5 21.2 1.7 47.8 27.9 6.1 54.7 28.8 11.4 103.2 26.6 16.8Queue Length 50th (ft) ~137 231 0 10 221 29 25 66 16 42 35 76Queue Length 95th (ft) #334 #576 12 33 #531 154 #87 102 62 #151 61 144Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 316 1837 876 135 1633 1002 181 1820 862 181 1820 606Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 1.39 0.68 0.09 0.32 0.69 0.49 0.59 0.16 0.19 0.97 0.09 0.47Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 66 1248 200 206 1412 559 185 459 362 512 534v/c Ratio 0.58 0.97 0.30 0.96 0.90 0.63 0.80 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.71Control Delay 78.8 58.8 11.7 108.2 43.1 13.7 77.5 51.2 45.8 86.1 49.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 78.8 58.8 11.7 108.2 43.1 13.7 77.5 51.2 45.8 86.1 49.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 508 33 165 558 118 142 181 168 211 208Queue Length 95th (ft) #127 #769 101 #358 #839 283 #279 236 288 #368 269Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 114 1284 662 214 1564 890 256 999 552 526 1015Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.97 0.30 0.96 0.90 0.63 0.72 0.46 0.66 0.97 0.53Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 4Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 205 2039 415 1712 350 314 672 305 249 1138v/c Ratio 0.98 1.10 1.09 0.93 0.49 1.13 0.69 0.51 0.76 1.13Control Delay 116.3 93.0 127.0 51.2 12.4 146.5 48.5 14.6 74.7 114.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 116.3 93.0 127.0 51.2 12.4 146.5 48.5 14.6 74.7 114.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 182 ~735 ~210 525 65 ~163 282 54 110 ~602Queue Length 95th (ft) #344 #831 #317 #601 156 #261 353 146 157 #743Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 209 1855 381 1845 719 279 972 598 356 1005Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.98 1.10 1.09 0.93 0.49 1.13 0.69 0.51 0.70 1.13Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 31 487 336 1272 1613v/c Ratio 0.06 0.91 0.88 0.48 0.93Control Delay 36.1 34.5 66.5 7.0 37.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 36.1 34.5 66.5 7.0 37.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 9 103 226 152 532Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 242 #448 291 #852Internal Link Dist (ft) 1228 576 1262Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 200Base Capacity (vph) 966 684 389 2678 1741Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.71 0.86 0.47 0.93Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 6Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 566 513 192 54v/c Ratio 0.35 0.28 0.35 0.10Control Delay 8.7 6.7 10.9 3.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 8.7 6.7 10.9 3.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 20 21 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 106 78 69 15Internal Link Dist (ft) 489 971 883Turn Bay Length (ft) 50Base Capacity (vph) 2059 2331 1394 1258Starvation Cap Reductn 0000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000Storage Cap Reductn 0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.22 0.14 0.04Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 173 795 84 222 635 140 46 209 156 94 260 175v/c Ratio 0.41 0.68 0.14 0.46 0.52 0.16 0.18 0.35 0.40 0.28 0.29 0.22Control Delay 40.8 28.5 3.2 39.7 24.3 3.2 45.2 32.5 8.8 43.0 28.5 3.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 40.8 28.5 3.2 39.7 24.3 3.2 45.2 32.5 8.8 43.0 28.5 3.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 155 0 46 114 0 9 44 0 20 54 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 345 15 122 261 30 37 93 41 62 108 31Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 911 2780 1268 911 2780 1135 683 1252 648 911 1475 994Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.29 0.07 0.24 0.23 0.12 0.07 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.18 0.18Intersection Summary Queues3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 49 807 113 209 799 185 60 146 134 108 240v/c Ratio 0.29 0.74 0.21 0.65 0.52 0.24 0.35 0.40 0.32 0.34 0.58Control Delay 55.1 37.3 11.7 52.4 24.6 5.2 55.7 40.9 8.9 52.1 43.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 55.1 37.3 11.7 52.4 24.6 5.2 55.7 40.9 8.9 52.1 43.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 238 13 123 197 5 36 81 0 34 137Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 403 63 261 342 53 96 167 50 77 267Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 462 2036 934 462 2042 952 462 598 592 898 579Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.40 0.12 0.45 0.39 0.19 0.13 0.24 0.23 0.12 0.41Intersection Summary
Queues
4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 96 803 111 167 920 185 120 272 143 94 404v/c Ratio 0.43 0.68 0.19 0.41 0.70 0.26 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.25 0.58Control Delay 47.5 28.6 6.9 43.6 29.1 4.8 43.9 31.7 7.5 44.1 33.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 47.5 28.6 6.9 43.6 29.1 4.8 43.9 31.7 7.5 44.1 33.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 178 4 41 216 0 29 64 0 23 90Queue Length 95th (ft) 132 346 45 104 422 50 80 131 50 67 181Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 422 2110 972 819 2110 1018 819 1112 595 819 1079Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.38 0.11 0.20 0.44 0.18 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.37Intersection Summary Queues2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 263 755 52 42 679 297 73 180 115 106 102 172v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.15 0.66 0.35 0.24 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.16 0.25Control Delay 36.7 20.0 0.2 41.5 28.8 7.4 41.2 29.6 8.0 39.8 27.4 3.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 36.7 20.0 0.2 41.5 28.8 7.4 41.2 29.6 8.0 39.8 27.4 3.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 128 0 8 127 24 14 36 0 21 20 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 312 0 36 314 121 53 82 38 70 50 33Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 968 2931 1330 968 2931 1105 726 1327 658 968 1560 867Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.26 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.27 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.20Intersection Summary
Queues
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 40 737 116 125 834 325 108 268 215 298 314v/c Ratio 0.26 0.73 0.23 0.54 0.60 0.41 0.51 0.65 0.42 0.59 0.69Control Delay 56.6 39.5 12.9 55.9 29.9 6.7 56.5 46.9 7.9 49.5 45.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 56.6 39.5 12.9 55.9 29.9 6.7 56.5 46.9 7.9 49.5 45.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 225 15 77 243 15 67 158 0 94 181Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 388 70 175 406 94 157 315 65 181 359Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 447 1968 917 447 1968 988 447 578 632 867 575Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.37 0.13 0.28 0.42 0.33 0.24 0.46 0.34 0.34 0.55Intersection Summary Queues4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 119 970 177 231 968 195 175 376 170 139 638v/c Ratio 0.57 0.83 0.29 0.58 0.83 0.30 0.49 0.41 0.32 0.42 0.73Control Delay 57.8 39.1 9.4 52.4 39.7 5.1 52.5 35.5 7.3 52.3 42.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 57.8 39.1 9.4 52.4 39.7 5.1 52.5 35.5 7.3 52.3 42.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 294 19 72 293 0 55 103 0 43 188Queue Length 95th (ft) 167 474 79 145 482 52 116 197 58 97 342Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 348 1751 839 676 1743 867 676 941 545 676 902Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.55 0.21 0.34 0.56 0.22 0.26 0.40 0.31 0.21 0.71Intersection Summary
Queues
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 1Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1576 400 993 28 312v/c Ratio 0.95 0.90 0.36 0.16 0.72Control Delay 33.0 55.0 3.0 33.7 14.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 33.0 55.0 3.0 33.7 14.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 347 182 48 13 0Queue Length 95th (ft) #562 #363 90 35 71Internal Link Dist (ft) 995 1882 734Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 90Base Capacity (vph) 1667 450 2795 242 486Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 0.89 0.36 0.12 0.64Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 275 1264 118 324 1010 223 69 331 238 150 406 279v/c Ratio 0.95 0.85 0.16 1.12 0.68 0.23 0.42 0.46 0.53 0.91 0.51 0.44Control Delay 83.4 30.4 4.9 127.6 24.4 2.9 50.0 30.4 13.0 93.4 30.5 16.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 83.4 30.4 4.9 127.6 24.4 2.9 50.0 30.4 13.0 93.4 30.5 16.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 281 0 ~94 202 0 17 80 29 39 100 80Queue Length 95th (ft) #201 #631 39 #240 #418 43 #49 114 86 #127 139 139Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 289 1493 736 289 1493 960 165 1663 820 165 1663 632Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 0.85 0.16 1.12 0.68 0.23 0.42 0.20 0.29 0.91 0.24 0.44Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 80 1334 189 337 1304 309 99 243 219 180 393v/c Ratio 0.55 0.91 0.26 0.95 0.69 0.33 0.92 0.45 0.52 0.76 0.69Control Delay 72.9 46.4 10.4 89.3 26.5 6.5 126.5 52.1 10.2 80.6 54.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 72.9 46.4 10.4 89.3 26.5 6.5 126.5 52.1 10.2 80.6 54.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 532 30 277 401 31 83 99 0 76 156Queue Length 95th (ft) 131 #836 97 #547 639 109 #224 140 67 #156 209Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 176 1469 723 354 1884 931 108 952 579 237 963Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.91 0.26 0.95 0.69 0.33 0.92 0.26 0.38 0.76 0.41Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 4Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 165 1596 294 1590 325 211 479 251 165 699v/c Ratio 0.89 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.44 0.65 0.54 0.45 0.51 0.79Control Delay 86.3 38.8 74.9 41.5 5.9 52.7 33.0 8.9 48.1 37.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 86.3 38.8 74.9 41.5 5.9 52.7 33.0 8.9 48.1 37.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 322 91 329 6 63 131 18 48 190Queue Length 95th (ft) #247 #506 #192 #515 73 #122 178 77 90 253Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 186 1755 326 1719 739 326 1271 705 326 1250Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.44 0.65 0.38 0.36 0.51 0.56Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 21 361 685 930 857v/c Ratio 0.06 0.74 0.84 0.33 0.83Control Delay 38.5 14.0 36.5 4.0 41.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 38.5 14.0 36.5 4.0 41.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 338 41 245Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 78 #784 188 #482Internal Link Dist (ft) 1228 576 1262Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 200Base Capacity (vph) 1038 723 829 2891 1058Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.50 0.83 0.32 0.81Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 6Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 508 1029 209 56v/c Ratio 0.36 0.51 0.38 0.11Control Delay 9.0 4.5 11.6 3.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 9.0 4.5 11.6 3.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 20 26 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 89 75 15Internal Link Dist (ft) 489 971 883Turn Bay Length (ft) 50Base Capacity (vph) 1718 2325 1340 1212Starvation Cap Reductn 0000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000Storage Cap Reductn 0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.44 0.16 0.05Intersection Summary
Queues
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 1Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1491 150 1369 9 290v/c Ratio 0.82 0.62 0.57 0.03 0.66Control Delay 18.3 38.0 5.8 20.4 13.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 18.3 38.0 5.8 20.4 13.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 208 48 83 3 14Queue Length 95th (ft) #401 #128 164 13 73Internal Link Dist (ft) 995 1882 734Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 90Base Capacity (vph) 1842 251 2650 385 536Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.60 0.52 0.02 0.54Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 2Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 438 1257 79 52 1130 494 112 296 174 176 166 286v/c Ratio 1.39 0.71 0.09 0.39 0.81 0.49 0.62 0.43 0.43 0.97 0.24 0.47Control Delay 222.5 21.2 2.0 49.9 27.9 6.2 56.2 28.9 12.3 103.2 26.6 16.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 222.5 21.2 2.0 49.9 27.9 6.2 56.2 28.9 12.3 103.2 26.6 16.8Queue Length 50th (ft) ~137 231 0 12 221 29 26 66 20 42 35 76Queue Length 95th (ft) #334 #576 15 #43 #531 156 #92 103 67 #151 61 144Internal Link Dist (ft) 1882 1905 385 800Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 550 525 550 185 200 500 400Base Capacity (vph) 316 1837 876 135 1633 1001 181 1820 862 181 1820 606Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 1.39 0.68 0.09 0.39 0.69 0.49 0.62 0.16 0.20 0.97 0.09 0.47Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 67 1255 200 209 1420 559 185 460 365 512 536v/c Ratio 0.59 0.98 0.30 0.98 0.91 0.63 0.80 0.67 0.85 0.98 0.71Control Delay 79.7 60.3 11.7 111.8 43.8 13.9 77.7 51.1 46.4 86.4 49.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 79.7 60.3 11.7 111.8 43.8 13.9 77.7 51.1 46.4 86.4 49.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 514 33 169 566 120 143 181 171 211 209Queue Length 95th (ft) #128 #776 101 #365 #847 285 #279 237 290 #368 271Internal Link Dist (ft) 1905 1227 1259 565Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 85 175 150 150 150Base Capacity (vph) 114 1283 661 213 1562 889 256 998 551 525 1014Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.98 0.30 0.98 0.91 0.63 0.72 0.46 0.66 0.98 0.53Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 4Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 208 2046 415 1721 350 314 673 305 249 1141v/c Ratio 1.00 1.10 1.09 0.93 0.49 1.13 0.69 0.51 0.76 1.14Control Delay 119.9 94.4 127.0 51.7 12.5 146.5 48.5 14.6 74.7 116.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 119.9 94.4 127.0 51.7 12.5 146.5 48.5 14.6 74.7 116.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 ~740 ~210 529 66 ~163 282 54 110 ~605Queue Length 95th (ft) #352 #836 #317 #610 157 #261 353 146 157 #745Internal Link Dist (ft) 1227 1247 1262 395Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 230 300 150 350 100Base Capacity (vph) 209 1855 381 1845 719 279 972 598 356 1004Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 1.00 1.10 1.09 0.93 0.49 1.13 0.69 0.51 0.70 1.14Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 32 492 340 1272 1613v/c Ratio 0.06 0.91 0.88 0.48 0.93Control Delay 36.0 35.2 67.1 7.1 38.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 36.0 35.2 67.1 7.1 38.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 9 108 231 156 537Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 250 #454 291 #852Internal Link Dist (ft) 1228 576 1262Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 200Base Capacity (vph) 960 682 386 2661 1731Starvation Cap Reductn 00000Spillback Cap Reductn 00000Storage Cap Reductn 00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.72 0.88 0.48 0.93Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queues10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 6Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 567 514 193 56v/c Ratio 0.35 0.28 0.35 0.11Control Delay 8.7 6.7 10.9 3.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 8.7 6.7 10.9 3.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 20 22 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 106 78 69 15Internal Link Dist (ft) 489 971 883Turn Bay Length (ft) 50Base Capacity (vph) 2056 2330 1395 1259Starvation Cap Reductn 0000Spillback Cap Reductn 0000Storage Cap Reductn 0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.22 0.14 0.04Intersection Summary
B Transportation Impact Study for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project April 2024
Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
~
W-Trans
This page intentionally left blank
HCM 6th TWSC
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 4Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 737 106 214 531 15 167Future Vol, veh/h 737 106 214 531 15 167Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 225 - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 857 123 249 617 17 194Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 980 0 1726 490 Stage 1 - - - - 919 - Stage 2 - - - - 807 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 700 - 80 524 Stage 1 - - - - 349 - Stage 2 - - - - 399 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 700 - 52 524Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 52 - Stage 1 - - - - 349 - Stage 2 - - - - 257 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 3.7 23.3HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 52 524 - - 700 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.335 0.371 - - 0.355 -HCM Control Delay (s) 105.8 15.9 - - 13 -HCM Lane LOS F C - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 1.7 - - 1.6 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 147 676 63 173 540 119 37 177 127 80 217 149Future Volume (veh/h) 147 676 63 173 540 119 37 177 127 80 217 149Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 173 795 47 204 635 99 44 208 68 94 255 113Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 287 1305 582 327 1346 686 121 479 209 187 547 376Arrive On Green 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.15Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1550 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 795 47 204 635 99 44 208 68 94 255 113Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1550 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 10.4 1.1 3.3 7.7 2.2 0.7 3.1 2.3 1.5 3.7 3.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 10.4 1.1 3.3 7.7 2.2 0.7 3.1 2.3 1.5 3.7 3.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 287 1305 582 327 1346 686 121 479 209 187 547 376V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.61 0.08 0.62 0.47 0.14 0.36 0.43 0.33 0.50 0.47 0.30Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1206 3722 1660 1206 3722 1746 905 1551 676 1206 1551 823HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.3 14.8 11.8 25.0 13.5 9.8 27.0 22.8 22.4 26.3 22.1 18.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.6 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 3.2 0.3 1.2 2.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.9 15.4 11.9 26.4 13.8 10.0 27.7 23.3 23.2 27.9 22.7 18.4LnGrp LOS C B B C B A C C C C C BApproach Vol, veh/h 1015 938 320 462 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.2 16.2 23.9 22.7
Approach LOS B B C CTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 27.0 6.0 13.8 9.8 27.7 7.1 12.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 60.0 * 15 * 25 * 20 60.0 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 12.4 2.7 5.7 4.8 9.7 3.5 5.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 8.6 0.0 1.7 0.3 6.9 0.2 1.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.6HCM 6th LOS BNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. ++ r ++ r ++ r ++ r
H r
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 43 713 101 180 697 165 53 130 117 96 163 47Future Volume (veh/h) 43 713 101 180 697 165 53 130 117 96 163 47Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 801 85 202 783 138 60 146 49 108 183 45Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 119 1269 565 249 1528 677 118 271 228 285 234 57Arrive On Green 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 1781 3554 1574 1781 1870 1578 3456 1450 356Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 801 85 202 783 138 60 146 49 108 0 228Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1781 1777 1574 1781 1870 1578 1728 0 1806Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 14.3 2.8 8.4 12.3 4.2 2.5 5.5 2.1 2.3 0.0 9.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 14.3 2.8 8.4 12.3 4.2 2.5 5.5 2.1 2.3 0.0 9.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 119 1269 565 249 1528 677 118 271 228 285 0 291V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.63 0.15 0.81 0.51 0.20 0.51 0.54 0.21 0.38 0.00 0.78Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 585 2566 1143 585 2566 1136 585 737 622 1134 0 711HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.1 20.3 16.6 31.8 15.9 13.6 34.4 30.2 28.8 33.1 0.0 30.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.9 0.2 6.2 0.5 0.3 3.4 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.0 4.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.9 5.4 1.0 3.8 4.4 1.4 1.1 2.5 0.8 0.9 0.0 4.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.3 21.2 16.8 38.0 16.3 13.8 37.8 31.9 29.2 33.9 0.0 35.3LnGrp LOS D C B D B B D C C C A DApproach Vol, veh/h 934 1123 255 336Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 19.9 32.8 34.8Approach LOS C B C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s15.7 33.2 10.0 17.3 10.1 38.8 11.3 16.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30 * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4 16.3 4.5 11.2 4.0 14.3 4.3 7.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 10.9 0.1 1.1 0.1 11.3 0.3 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 88 749 104 157 850 174 113 256 134 88 268 106Future Volume (veh/h) 88 749 104 157 850 174 113 256 134 88 268 106Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 94 797 77 167 904 117 120 272 61 94 285 85Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 184 1236 551 404 1283 572 382 583 260 357 424 124Arrive On Green 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2700 788Grp Volume(v), veh/h 94 797 77 167 904 117 120 272 61 94 185 185Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1711Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 14.1 2.5 3.3 16.3 3.8 2.4 5.2 2.5 1.9 7.3 7.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 14.1 2.5 3.3 16.3 3.8 2.4 5.2 2.5 1.9 7.3 7.6Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 1236 551 404 1283 572 382 583 260 357 279 269V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.64 0.14 0.41 0.70 0.20 0.31 0.47 0.23 0.26 0.66 0.69Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 477 2381 1061 926 2381 1062 926 1190 531 926 595 573HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.7 20.5 16.7 30.6 20.4 16.4 30.6 28.2 27.1 30.8 29.6 29.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 2.7 3.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.5 5.2 0.8 1.3 6.0 1.3 0.9 2.1 0.9 0.8 3.2 3.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 21.2 16.8 30.8 21.3 16.7 30.8 28.8 27.6 31.0 32.3 32.8LnGrp LOS C C B C C B C C C C C CApproach Vol, veh/h 968 1188 453 464Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 22.2 29.2 32.3Approach LOS C C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s13.7 32.0 12.3 16.7 12.7 33.0 11.7 17.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25 * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 16.1 4.4 9.6 5.7 18.3 3.9 7.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.3 0.1 1.8 0.1 8.7 0.1 1.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.6HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC
5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 5.2Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 113 99 75 153 119 151Future Vol, veh/h 113 99 75 153 119 151Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00100Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 133 116 88 180 140 178Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 638 179 0 0 269 0 Stage 1 179 - - - - - Stage 2 459 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 441 864 - - 1295 - Stage 1 852 - - - - - Stage 2 636 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 392 863 - - 1294 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 473 - - - - - Stage 1 851 - - - - - Stage 2 567 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 12.9 0 3.6HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 473 863 1294 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.281 0.135 0.108 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.6 9.8 8.1 -HCM Lane LOS - - C A A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.5 0.4 - HCM 6th AWSC6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 6IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 15Intersection LOS BMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 237 0 147 0 0 0 167 120 1 1 222 147Future Vol, veh/h 237 0 147 0 0 0 167 120 1 1 222 147Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 279 0 173 0 0 0 196 141 1 1 261 173Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 15.6 0 14.3 14.8
HCM LOS C - B BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 19% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 98% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 33%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 2% 0% 81% 0% 0% 0% 67%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 167 80 41 201 183 0 1 148 221LT Vol 167 0 0 201 36 0 1 0 0Through Vol 0 80 40 0 0 0 0 148 74RT Vol 0 0 1 0 147 0 0 0 147Lane Flow Rate 196 94 48 237 215 0 1 174 260Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.427 0.191 0.098 0.497 0.393 0 0.003 0.347 0.484Departure Headway (Hd) 7.829 7.317 7.299 7.555 6.586 8.352 7.696 7.184 6.707Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 460 491 492 479 548 0 467 503 538Service Time 5.565 5.052 5.035 5.274 4.304 6.102 5.415 4.903 4.426HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.426 0.191 0.098 0.495 0.392 0 0.002 0.346 0.483HCM Control Delay 16.3 11.8 10.8 17.5 13.5 11.1 10.4 13.7 15.6HCM Lane LOS C B B C B N B B CHCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 0.7 0.3 2.7 1.9 0 0 1.5 2.6 11 .,, f.
11 tf.
HCM 6th AWSC
7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 7IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 9.6Intersection LOS AMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 26 240 32 17 315 40Future Vol, veh/h 26 240 32 17 315 40Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 31 282 38 20 371 47Number of Lanes 2 12012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2Conflicting Approach Left NB WBConflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3Conflicting Approach RightSB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0HCM Control Delay 8 9 10.9HCM LOS A A BLane NBLn1 NBLn2WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 7% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 61% 0% 93% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 21 28 17 129 120 158 171 27LT Vol 0 0 17 9 0 158 158 0Through Vol 21 11 0 0 0 0 13 27RT Vol 0 17 0 120 120 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 25 33 20 151 141 185 201 31Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.042 0.052 0.035 0.215 0.129 0.301 0.324 0.031Departure Headway (Hd) 6.093 5.759 6.223 5.104 3.288 5.84 5.801 3.597Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 582 626 575 702 1084 610 615 978Service Time 3.893 3.459 3.964 2.844 1.028 3.626 3.587 1.382HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.053 0.035 0.215 0.13 0.303 0.327 0.032HCM Control Delay 9.2 8.8 9.2 9.2 6.5 11.2 11.4 6.5HCM Lane LOS AAAAABBAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.4 1.3 1.4 0.1 HCM 6th AWSC8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 8IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh13.5Intersection LOS BMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 72 157 74 7 310 80 95 89 6 38 70 44Future Vol, veh/h 72 157 74 7 310 80 95 89 6 38 70 44Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222Mvmt Flow 85 185 87 8 365 94 112 105 7 45 82 52Number of Lanes 1 20120110111Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3 3 3 2Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3 2 3 3Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 2 3 3 3HCM Control Delay 12.4 15.1 13.1 11.8HCM LOS B C B BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 94% 0% 100% 41% 0% 100% 56% 0% 100% 0%Vol Right, % 0% 6% 0% 0% 59% 0% 0% 44% 0% 0% 100%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 95 95 72 105 126 7 207 183 38 70 44LT Vol 95 0 72 0 0 7 0 0 38 0 0Through Vol 0 89 0 105 52 0 207 103 0 70 0RT Vol 0 6 0 0 74 0 0 80 0 0 44Lane Flow Rate 112 112 85 123 149 8 243 216 45 82 52Geometry Grp 88888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.251 0.234 0.184 0.25 0.285 0.017 0.478 0.406 0.104 0.18 0.103Departure Headway (Hd) 8.073 7.528 7.824 7.317 6.902 7.585 7.079 6.77 8.354 7.849 7.143Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 445 477 459 491 520 472 508 533 429 457 502Service Time 5.817 5.273 5.569 5.063 4.647 5.327 4.821 4.511 6.103 5.598 4.891HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.252 0.235 0.185 0.251 0.287 0.017 0.478 0.405 0.105 0.179 0.104HCM Control Delay 13.5 12.6 12.3 12.5 12.4 10.5 16.2 14.1 12.1 12.3 10.7HCM Lane LOS BBBBBBCBBBBHCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.9 0.7 1 1.2 0.1 2.6 2 0.3 0.6 0.3 11 .ft 11 tf. 11 tf. 11 f. 11 + .,,
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 11 193 366 497 405 53Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 193 366 497 405 53Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 212 402 546 445 58Pedestrians 3 3 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh) 5Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1557 258 506vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1557 258 506tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 81 71 62cM capacity (veh/h) 64 737 1052Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 8 216 402 273 273 297 206Volume Left 8 4 402 0000Volume Right 0 212 0 0 0 0 58cSH 64 751 1052 1700 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.29 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.12Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 30 45 0000Control Delay (s) 69.7 12.8 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS F B BApproach Delay (s) 14.9 4.5 0.0Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 9IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.5Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 43 229 209 341 112 30Future Vol, veh/h 43 229 209 341 112 30Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 51 269 246 401 132 35Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 647 0 - 0 818 447 Stage 1 - - - - 447 - Stage 2 - - - - 371 -Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 939 - - - 346 612 Stage 1 - - - - 644 - Stage 2 - - - - 698 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 939 - - - 324 612Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 324 - Stage 1 - - - - 603 - Stage 2 - - - - 698 -Approach EB WB SBHCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0 20.9HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2Capacity (veh/h) 939 - - - 324 612HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - - - 0.407 0.058HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - - 23.5 11.2HCM Lane LOS A A - - C BHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 1.9 0.2 'f"i .,, 1i ++ ti.
HCM 6th TWSC
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 783 14 80 732 5 155Future Vol, veh/h 783 14 80 732 5 155Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 225 - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 870 16 89 813 6 172Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 886 0 1463 443 Stage 1 - - - - 878 - Stage 2 - - - - 585 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 760 - 119 562 Stage 1 - - - - 367 - Stage 2 - - - - 520 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 760 - 105 562Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 105 - Stage 1 - - - - 367 - Stage 2 - - - - 459 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1 15HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 105 562 - - 760 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 0.306 - - 0.117 -HCM Control Delay (s) 41.2 14.2 - - 10.4 -HCM Lane LOS E B - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 1.3 - - 0.4 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 234 672 42 28 604 264 60 158 93 94 89 153Future Volume (veh/h) 234 672 42 28 604 264 60 158 93 94 89 153Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 263 755 32 31 679 255 67 178 26 106 100 97Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 403 1581 705 71 1240 646 161 392 172 202 434 378Arrive On Green 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.12Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1563 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 263 755 32 31 679 255 67 178 26 106 100 97Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1563 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 8.2 0.6 0.5 8.4 6.2 1.0 2.6 0.8 1.6 1.4 2.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 8.2 0.6 0.5 8.4 6.2 1.0 2.6 0.8 1.6 1.4 2.7Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 1581 705 71 1240 646 161 392 172 202 434 378V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.48 0.05 0.44 0.55 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.15 0.52 0.23 0.26Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1264 3900 1739 1264 3900 1832 948 1625 715 1264 1625 910HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.1 10.7 8.6 26.5 14.3 11.4 25.3 22.8 22.0 25.0 21.7 16.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.3 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 2.2 0.2 0.2 2.6 1.9 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.4 11.0 8.6 29.5 14.9 12.0 26.0 23.5 22.4 26.6 21.9 17.2LnGrp LOS C B A C B B C C C C C BApproach Vol, veh/h 1050 965 271 303 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.3 14.6 24.0 22.0
Approach LOS B B C CTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 30.3 6.6 11.7 11.4 25.1 7.2 11.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 60.0 * 15 * 25 * 20 60.0 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 10.2 3.0 4.7 6.0 10.4 3.6 4.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.0 0.1 0.7 0.5 8.7 0.2 1.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3HCM 6th LOS BNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. ++ r ++ r ++ r ++ r
H r
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 36 671 107 112 759 299 99 246 195 274 244 43Future Volume (veh/h) 36 671 107 112 759 299 99 246 195 274 244 43Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 729 70 122 825 190 108 267 108 298 265 40Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 104 1190 531 168 1318 587 143 348 294 413 358 54Arrive On Green 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.23 0.23Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1583 1781 1870 1580 3456 1588 240Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 729 70 122 825 190 108 267 108 298 0 305Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1583 1781 1870 1580 1728 0 1827Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 13.6 2.4 5.3 15.1 6.8 4.7 10.7 4.7 6.6 0.0 12.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 13.6 2.4 5.3 15.1 6.8 4.7 10.7 4.7 6.6 0.0 12.3Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 104 1190 531 168 1318 587 143 348 294 413 0 412V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.61 0.13 0.73 0.63 0.32 0.76 0.77 0.37 0.72 0.00 0.74Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 562 2468 1101 562 2468 1099 562 708 598 1091 0 692HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.9 22.0 18.3 34.9 20.4 17.8 35.7 30.6 28.1 33.6 0.0 28.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.9 0.2 5.9 0.8 0.5 7.9 3.5 0.8 2.4 0.0 2.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 5.2 0.9 2.4 5.7 2.4 2.3 4.9 1.8 2.8 0.0 5.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.2 22.9 18.5 40.8 21.3 18.4 43.5 34.1 28.9 36.0 0.0 31.1LnGrp LOS D C B D C B D C C D A CApproach Vol, veh/h 838 1137 483 603Approach Delay, s/veh 23.3 22.9 35.1 33.5Approach LOS C C D CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.5 32.5 11.3 22.9 9.6 35.4 14.5 19.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30 * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 15.6 6.7 14.3 3.7 17.1 8.6 12.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 9.6 0.2 1.5 0.1 12.3 0.9 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 111 924 170 222 920 187 168 360 163 133 485 125Future Volume (veh/h) 111 924 170 222 920 187 168 360 163 133 485 125Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 962 102 231 958 136 175 375 102 139 505 116Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 169 1274 568 346 1293 576 343 784 350 336 626 143Arrive On Green 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.22 0.22Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 3456 3554 1582 3456 3554 1585 3456 2862 654Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 962 102 231 958 136 175 375 102 139 312 309Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1728 1777 1582 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1739Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 21.3 4.0 5.8 21.0 5.4 4.3 8.2 4.8 3.4 14.9 15.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 21.3 4.0 5.8 21.0 5.4 4.3 8.2 4.8 3.4 14.9 15.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 1274 568 346 1293 576 343 784 350 336 389 381V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.75 0.18 0.67 0.74 0.24 0.51 0.48 0.29 0.41 0.80 0.81Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 398 1984 884 772 1984 883 772 992 442 772 496 485HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 25.3 19.7 38.9 24.8 19.8 38.3 30.4 29.1 38.0 33.2 33.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 7.3 8.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.4 8.4 1.4 2.4 8.2 1.9 1.8 3.4 1.8 1.4 7.0 7.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.1 26.4 19.9 39.7 25.8 20.1 38.7 30.9 29.5 38.3 40.5 41.2LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D C C D D DApproach Vol, veh/h 1180 1325 652 760Approach Delay, s/veh 27.3 27.7 32.8 40.4Approach LOS C C C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.0 38.1 12.9 24.6 13.5 38.6 12.7 24.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25 * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 23.3 6.3 17.1 7.6 23.0 5.4 10.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 8.8 0.2 2.3 0.1 9.0 0.2 2.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.9HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC
5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.3Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 48 28 70 36 26 93Future Vol, veh/h 48 28 70 36 26 93Conflicting Peds, #/hr 22 39 0 22 39 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 56 33 82 42 31 109Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 335 181 0 0 163 0 Stage 1 142 - - - - - Stage 2 193 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 660 862 - - 1416 - Stage 1 885 - - - - - Stage 2 840 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 608 799 - - 1363 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 654 - - - - - Stage 1 852 - - - - - Stage 2 804 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0 1.7HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 654 799 1363 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.086 0.041 0.022 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11 9.7 7.7 -HCM Lane LOS - - B A A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 0.1 - HCM 6th AWSC6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 9IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 8.6Intersection LOS AMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 63 0 40 0 0 0 54 164 0 2 144 30Future Vol, veh/h 63 0 40 0 0 0 54 164 0 2 144 30Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 74 0 47 0 0 0 64 193 0 2 169 35Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 9.1 0 8.2 8.9
HCM LOS A - A ALane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 18% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 62%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 0% 82% 0% 0% 0% 38%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 54 82 82 54 49 0 2 96 78LT Vol 54 0 0 54 9 0 2 0 0Through Vol 0 82 82 0 0 0 0 96 48RT Vol 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 30Lane Flow Rate 64 96 96 64 57 0 2 113 92Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.103 0.143 0.096 0.109 0.082 0 0.004 0.169 0.13Departure Headway (Hd) 5.838 5.335 3.592 6.137 5.156 5.914 5.877 5.375 5.104Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 613 670 992 581 690 0 607 665 699Service Time 3.583 3.08 1.337 3.901 2.921 3.695 3.631 3.129 2.858HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.104 0.143 0.097 0.11 0.083 0 0.003 0.17 0.132HCM Control Delay 9.3 9 6.7 9.7 8.4 8.7 8.7 9.2 8.6HCM Lane LOS AAAAANAAAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0 0 0.6 0.4 11 .,, f.
11 tf.
HCM 6th AWSC
7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 11IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 7.8Intersection LOS AMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 2 197 8 1 167 23Future Vol, veh/h 2 197 8 1 167 23Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 2 232 9 1 196 27Number of Lanes 212012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0
HCM Control Delay 6.8 8.1 8.9
HCM LOS A A ALane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 1% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 73% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 99% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 5 4 1 99 99 84 91 15LT Vol 0 0 1 1 0 84 83 0Through Vol 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 15RT Vol 0 1 0 98 99 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 6 4 2 117 116 98 107 18Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.01 0.006 0.002 0.144 0.087 0.149 0.162 0.016Departure Headway (Hd) 5.456 5.265 5.632 4.44 2.699 5.474 5.432 3.2Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 657 680 639 812 1335 652 657 1093Service Time 3.184 2.993 3.334 2.142 0.4 3.233 3.191 0.994HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.144 0.087 0.15 0.163 0.016HCM Control Delay 8.2 8 8.3 7.9 5.7 9.2 9.2 6HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAHCM 95th-tile Q 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0 HCM 6th AWSC8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 13IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 12.2Intersection LOS BMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 43 148 79 17 114 75 48 103 10 95 190 20Future Vol, veh/h 43 148 79 17 114 75 48 103 10 95 190 20Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 49 168 90 19 130 85 55 117 11 108 216 23Number of Lanes 120120110111Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3332Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3233Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 2333HCM Control Delay 11.7 11.5 12 13.3HCM LOSB B B BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 91% 0% 100% 38% 0% 100% 34% 0% 100% 0%Vol Right, % 0% 9% 0% 0% 62% 0% 0% 66% 0% 0% 100%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 48 113 43 99 128 17 76 113 95 190 20LT Vol 48 0 43 0 0 17 0 0 95 0 0Through Vol 0 103 0 99 49 0 76 38 0 190 0RT Vol 0 10 0 0 79 0 0 75 0 0 20Lane Flow Rate 55 128 49 112 146 19 86 128 108 216 23Geometry Grp 88888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.116 0.254 0.103 0.22 0.268 0.041 0.173 0.241 0.221 0.412 0.039Departure Headway (Hd) 7.668 7.115 7.56 7.054 6.617 7.723 7.216 6.745 7.377 6.875 6.172Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 468 506 475 510 544 464 497 533 488 525 582Service Time 5.403 4.841 5.282 4.776 4.34 5.46 4.953 4.482 5.098 4.595 3.892HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.118 0.253 0.103 0.22 0.268 0.041 0.173 0.24 0.221 0.411 0.04HCM Control Delay 11.4 12.3 11.2 11.8 11.8 10.8 11.5 11.6 12.2 14.3 9.1HCM Lane LOS BBBBBBBBBBAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 1 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 2 0.1 "i .ft "i ti. "i ti. "i t. "i t .,,
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 14 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 17 263 182 680 829 33Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 263 182 680 829 33Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 283 196 731 891 35Pedestrians 1 1 1Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh) 5Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1668 465 927vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1668 465 927tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 72 48 73cM capacity (veh/h) 64 543 732Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 12 289 196 366 366 594 332Volume Left 12 6 196 0000Volume Right 0 283 0 0 0 0 35cSH 64 555 732 1700 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.52 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.20Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 75 27 0000Control Delay (s) 74.1 19.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS F C BApproach Delay (s) 21.8 2.5 0.0Approach LOS CIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.1Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 16IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.2Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 34 269 206 69 103 30Future Vol, veh/h 34 269 206 69 103 30Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 37 292 224 75 112 33Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 299 0 - 0 628 262 Stage 1 - - - - 262 - Stage 2 - - - - 366 -Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1262 - - - 447 777 Stage 1 - - - - 782 - Stage 2 - - - - 702 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1262 - - - 431 777Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 431 - Stage 1 - - - - 755 - Stage 2 - - - - 702 -Approach EB WB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 14.8HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2Capacity (veh/h) 1262 - - - 431 777HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - - 0.26 0.042HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - - 16.3 9.8HCM Lane LOS A A - - C AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1 0.1 'f"i .,, 1i ++ ti.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1370 198 400 991 28 312Future Volume (veh/h) 1370 198 400 991 28 312Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1370 126 400 991 28 218Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 1485 136 436 2675 237 211Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.24 0.75 0.13 0.13Sat Flow, veh/h 3385 301 1781 3647 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 737 759 400 991 28 218Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1816 1781 1777 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 30.7 31.1 17.3 7.5 1.1 10.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.7 31.1 17.3 7.5 1.1 10.5Prop In Lane 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 802 819 436 2675 237 211V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.37 0.12 1.03Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 822 841 440 2726 237 211HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 20.4 29.0 3.3 30.1 34.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 15.9 24.0 0.1 0.2 70.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.4 14.1 9.4 1.0 0.5 7.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 36.3 53.0 3.4 30.3 105.0LnGrp LOS D D D A C FApproach Vol, veh/h 1496 1391 246Approach Delay, s/veh 35.9 17.7 96.5Approach LOS D B FTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 23.8 40.1 63.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 19.5 36.5 60.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 19.3 33.1 9.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.5 7.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.6HCM 6th LOS C HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 275 1264 110 308 1010 223 67 330 232 150 402 279Future Volume (veh/h) 275 1264 110 308 1010 223 67 330 232 150 402 279Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 275 1264 67 308 1010 158 67 330 103 150 402 180Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 313 1497 668 313 1497 750 136 632 277 179 675 445Arrive On Green 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.19 0.19Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1558 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 275 1264 67 308 1010 158 67 330 103 150 402 180Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1558 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 24.7 2.0 6.9 17.8 4.5 1.5 6.5 4.5 3.3 8.0 7.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 24.7 2.0 6.9 17.8 4.5 1.5 6.5 4.5 3.3 8.0 7.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 313 1497 668 313 1497 750 136 632 277 179 675 445V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.84 0.10 0.98 0.67 0.21 0.49 0.52 0.37 0.84 0.60 0.40Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 313 1609 718 313 1609 800 179 1793 786 179 1793 943HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.7 20.1 13.5 35.1 18.1 11.9 36.4 28.8 28.0 36.3 28.6 22.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.3 4.3 0.1 46.4 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 27.7 0.8 0.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.3 9.2 0.7 4.6 6.2 1.5 0.6 2.7 1.7 2.0 3.3 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 24.4 13.6 81.5 19.3 12.1 37.4 29.4 28.7 64.0 29.4 23.1LnGrp LOS E C B F B B D C C E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 1606 1476 500 732Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 31.5 30.3 34.9Approach LOS C C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.0 38.6 7.1 19.7 12.0 38.6 8.0 18.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 7 35.0 * 4 * 39 * 7 35.0 * 4 * 39Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 26.7 3.5 10.0 8.1 19.8 5.3 8.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 79 1329 189 331 1290 309 99 243 217 180 303 86Future Volume (veh/h) 79 1329 189 331 1290 309 99 243 217 180 303 86Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 79 1329 142 331 1290 230 99 243 80 180 303 73Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 109 1509 673 357 2004 891 117 481 214 234 392 93Arrive On Green 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.20 0.56 0.56 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.14 0.14Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 1781 3554 1580 1781 3554 1578 3456 2849 676Grp Volume(v), veh/h 79 1329 142 331 1290 230 99 243 80 180 187 189Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1781 1777 1580 1781 1777 1578 1728 1777 1749Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 42.0 6.9 22.3 30.4 9.1 6.7 7.8 5.6 6.3 12.4 12.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 42.0 6.9 22.3 30.4 9.1 6.7 7.8 5.6 6.3 12.4 12.8Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 1509 673 357 2004 891 117 481 214 234 245 241V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.88 0.21 0.93 0.64 0.26 0.85 0.50 0.37 0.77 0.76 0.78Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 1570 700 379 2004 891 117 1018 452 254 523 515HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.4 32.3 22.2 48.0 18.2 13.6 56.5 49.0 48.1 56.0 50.8 50.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.9 6.4 0.3 27.9 0.9 0.3 41.2 0.8 1.1 12.3 4.9 5.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.6 18.3 2.6 12.3 11.6 3.2 4.3 3.5 2.3 3.1 5.8 5.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.3 38.7 22.5 75.8 19.1 13.9 97.7 49.9 49.2 68.4 55.7 56.5LnGrp LOS E D C E B B F D D E E EApproach Vol, veh/h 1550 1851 422 556 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.5 28.6 61.0 60.1
Approach LOS D C E ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s29.5 57.9 13.0 21.8 12.5 74.9 13.3 21.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 54 * 8 * 36 * 13 * 67 * 9 * 35Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.3 44.0 8.7 14.8 7.3 32.4 8.3 9.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.9 0.0 2.1 0.1 20.3 0.0 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.2HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 163 1395 195 294 1575 325 211 479 251 165 500 193Future Volume (veh/h) 163 1395 195 294 1575 325 211 479 251 165 500 193Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 163 1395 135 294 1575 205 211 479 107 165 500 144Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 193 1669 161 336 1745 542 335 845 377 332 643 184Arrive On Green 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.24 0.24Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4733 458 3456 5106 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2715 777Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 1003 527 294 1575 205 211 479 107 165 326 318Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1702 1787 1728 1702 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1715Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 25.0 25.0 7.8 27.1 9.0 5.4 11.0 5.1 4.2 15.9 16.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 25.0 25.0 7.8 27.1 9.0 5.4 11.0 5.1 4.2 15.9 16.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 1200 630 336 1745 542 335 845 377 332 421 406V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.38 0.63 0.57 0.28 0.50 0.78 0.78Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 193 1215 638 336 1767 549 336 1307 583 336 653 631HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 27.5 27.5 41.2 29.0 23.0 40.2 31.0 28.8 39.7 33.0 33.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.6 5.3 9.6 20.8 6.9 0.5 2.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.1 3.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.9 10.2 11.4 4.1 11.2 3.2 2.3 4.5 1.9 1.8 6.9 6.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.0 32.8 37.0 62.0 35.9 23.5 43.0 31.6 29.2 40.1 36.1 36.5LnGrp LOS E C D E D C D C C D D DApproach Vol, veh/h 1693 2074 797 809 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.4 38.4 34.3 37.0
Approach LOSDDCDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.0 38.6 13.0 26.9 15.0 37.6 12.9 27.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9 * 33 * 9 * 34 * 10 * 32 * 9 * 34Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 27.0 7.4 18.0 10.3 29.1 6.2 13.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.5 0.1 3.5 0.0 2.5 0.1 3.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 'I t+f. 'l'I +++ .,, 'l'I t+ .,, 'l'I tf.
HCM 6th TWSC
5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 9Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 210 185 140 281 223 282Future Vol, veh/h 210 185 140 281 223 282Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00100Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 210 185 140 281 223 282Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1011 282 0 0 422 0 Stage 1 282 - - - - - Stage 2 729 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 265 757 - - 1137 - Stage 1 766 - - - - - Stage 2 477 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 213 756 - - 1136 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 313 - - - - - Stage 1 765 - - - - - Stage 2 383 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 25 0 3.9HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 313 756 1136 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.671 0.245 0.196 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 37.1 11.3 8.9 -HCM Lane LOS - - E B A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 4.5 1 0.7 - HCM 6th AWSC6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 6IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 50.9Intersection LOS FMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 443 0 275 0 0 0 312 224 2 0 415 275Future Vol, veh/h 443 0 275 0 0 0 312 224 2 0 415 275Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 443 0 275 0 0 0 312 224 2 0 415 275Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 56.7 0 35.1 57.3
HCM LOS F - E FLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 97% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 33%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 3% 0% 81% 0% 0% 0% 67%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 312 149 77 377 341 0 0 277 413LT Vol 312 0 0 377 66 0 0 0 0Through Vol 0 149 75 0 0 0 0 277 138RT Vol 0 0 2 0 275 0 0 0 275Lane Flow Rate 312 149 77 377 341 0 0 277 413Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.847 0.384 0.197 0.984 0.801 0 0 0.708 1.002Departure Headway (Hd) 9.886 9.368 9.349 9.559 8.567 11.845 9.21 9.21 8.725Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 368 387 386 384 427 0 0 396 417Service Time 7.586 7.068 7.049 7.259 6.267 9.545 6.907 6.907 6.422HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.848 0.385 0.199 0.982 0.799 0 0 0.699 0.99HCM Control Delay 48.5 17.8 14.3 73.8 37.9 14.5 11.9 31.4 74.6HCM Lane LOS E C B F E N N D FHCM 95th-tile Q 7.8 1.8 0.7 11.4 7.2 0 0 5.3 12.5 11 .,, f.
11 tf.
HCM 6th AWSC
7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 7IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh13.7Intersection LOS BMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 49 449 60 32 589 75Future Vol, veh/h 49 449 60 32 589 75Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 49 449 60 32 589 75Number of Lanes 2 12012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2Conflicting Approach Left NB WBConflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3Conflicting Approach RightSB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0HCM Control Delay 10.4 10.5 16.7HCM LOS B B CLane NBLn1 NBLn2WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 7% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 62% 0% 93% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 40 52 33 241 225 295 320 50LT Vol 0 0 33 16 0 295 295 0Through Vol 40 20 0 0 0 0 25 50RT Vol 0 32 0 225 225 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 40 52 33 241 224 294 320 50Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.081 0.099 0.064 0.393 0.253 0.539 0.581 0.06Departure Headway (Hd) 7.315 6.877 6.998 5.876 4.056 6.592 6.552 4.34Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 489 519 512 612 882 548 553 825Service Time 5.077 4.639 4.743 3.621 1.8 4.323 4.284 2.071HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.082 0.1 0.064 0.394 0.254 0.536 0.579 0.061HCM Control Delay 10.7 10.4 10.2 12.4 8.2 16.8 18 7.3HCM Lane LOS BBBBACCAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.9 1 3.2 3.7 0.2 HCM 6th AWSC8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 8IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh32.3Intersection LOS DMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 134 292 137 13 571 150 175 166 11 71 131 80Future Vol, veh/h 134 292 137 13 571 150 175 166 11 71 131 80Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222Mvmt Flow 134 292 137 13 571 150 175 166 11 71 131 80Number of Lanes 1 20120120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3 3 3 3Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3HCM Control Delay 21.5 52.5 19.9 16.8HCM LOS C F C CLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 83% 0% 100% 42% 0% 100% 56% 0% 100% 35%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 58% 0% 0% 44% 0% 0% 65%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 175 111 66 134 195 234 13 381 340 71 87 124LT Vol 175 0 0 134 0 0 13 0 0 71 0 0Through Vol 0 111 55 0 195 97 0 381 190 0 87 44RT Vol 0 0 11 0 0 137 0 0 150 0 0 80Lane Flow Rate 175 111 66 134 195 234 13 381 340 71 87 124Geometry Grp 888888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.508 0.306 0.181 0.367 0.506 0.582 0.034 0.952 0.822 0.211 0.248 0.335Departure Headway (Hd) 10.447 9.947 9.831 9.852 9.352 8.943 9.504 9.004 8.695 10.707 10.207 9.754Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 345 361 364 364 385 403 376 404 415 335 351 369Service Time 8.225 7.725 7.608 7.62 7.12 6.711 7.27 6.77 6.462 8.486 7.986 7.533HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.507 0.307 0.181 0.368 0.506 0.581 0.035 0.943 0.819 0.212 0.248 0.336HCM Control Delay 23.6 17.1 14.8 18.3 21.4 23.5 12.6 64.2 41 16.3 16.3 17.4HCM Lane LOS C C B C C C B F E C C CHCM 95th-tile Q 2.7 1.3 0.7 1.6 2.8 3.6 0.1 10.8 7.6 0.8 1 1.4 'I tf. 'I tf. 'I tf.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 21 359 677 930 758 98Future Volume (Veh/h) 21 359 677 930 758 98Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 359 677 930 758 98Pedestrians 3 3 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh) 5Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 2632 434 859vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 2632 434 859tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 0 37 13cM capacity (veh/h) 2 567 776Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 14 366 677 465 465 505 351Volume Left 14 7 677 0000Volume Right 0 359 0 0 0 0 98cSH 2 118 776 1700 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 5.77 3.10 0.87 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.21Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 273 0000Control Delay (s) Err Err 32.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS F F DApproach Delay (s) Err 13.7 0.0Approach LOS FIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1344.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 21 359 677 930 758 98Future Volume (veh/h) 21 359 677 930 758 98Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 251 677 930 758 68Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 631 290 721 2565 887 80Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.72 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1585 1781 3647 3390 296Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 251 677 930 408 418Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1585 1781 1777 1777 1815Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 14.5 34.4 9.3 20.6 20.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 14.5 34.4 9.3 20.6 20.6Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 631 290 721 2565 478 489V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.87 0.94 0.36 0.85 0.85Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1100 505 879 3055 566 578HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.7 37.4 26.9 4.9 32.7 32.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 7.7 15.6 0.1 10.7 10.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.6 16.2 2.4 9.7 9.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.7 45.1 42.5 5.0 43.4 43.2LnGrp LOS C D D A D DApproach Vol, veh/h 272 1607 826Approach Delay, s/veh 44.1 20.8 43.3Approach LOS D C DTimer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 72.5 21.7 42.7 29.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 81.0 30.0 46.5 30.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.3 16.5 36.4 22.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.3 0.7 1.8 2.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.0HCM 6th LOS C 'f"i .,, 1i tt ti. 'i'i .,, 1i tt ti.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 10 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 77 428 391 636 209 55Future Volume (veh/h) 77 428 391 636 209 55Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 428 391 445 209 38Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 281 1248 818 730 318 283Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.18 0.18Sat Flow, veh/h 199 2796 1870 1585 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 250 255 391 445 209 38Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1293 1617 1777 1585 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 2.5 3.8 5.2 2.7 0.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 2.5 3.8 5.2 2.7 0.5Prop In Lane 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 784 744 818 730 318 283V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.34 0.48 0.61 0.66 0.13Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1222 1338 1470 1311 1817 1617HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.2 4.3 4.6 5.0 9.5 8.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 2.3 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.9 11.8 8.8LnGrp LOS A A A A B AApproach Vol, veh/h 505 836 247Approach Delay, s/veh 4.5 5.5 11.4Approach LOS A A BTimer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 8.9 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.6 25.4 20.6Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 4.7 7.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 0.7 4.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.1HCM 6th LOS A HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1461 26 150 1364 9 290Future Volume (veh/h) 1461 26 150 1364 9 290Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1461 18 150 1364 9 203Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 1720 21 191 2385 281 250Arrive On Green 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.67 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 3688 44 1781 3647 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 722 757 150 1364 9 203Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1862 1781 1777 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 18.8 18.8 4.3 10.8 0.2 6.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.8 18.8 4.3 10.8 0.2 6.5Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 850 891 191 2385 281 250V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.57 0.03 0.81Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 928 973 254 2667 389 346HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.1 12.1 22.9 4.6 18.8 21.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.0 6.8 11.0 0.2 0.0 9.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.0 6.3 2.1 1.0 0.1 2.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.1 18.9 33.9 4.9 18.8 31.2LnGrp LOS B B C A B CApproach Vol, veh/h 1479 1514 212Approach Delay, s/veh 19.0 7.7 30.6Approach LOS B A CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 10.1 29.7 39.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.5 7.5 27.5 39.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 6.3 20.8 12.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 4.4 10.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.4HCM 6th LOS B ti. "i tt "i .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 438 1257 75 43 1130 494 107 294 165 176 164 286Future Volume (veh/h) 438 1257 75 43 1130 494 107 294 165 176 164 286Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 438 1257 51 43 1130 425 107 294 36 176 164 161Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 334 1757 784 83 1499 756 177 534 236 191 548 398Arrive On Green 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.15Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1569 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 438 1257 51 43 1130 425 107 294 36 176 164 161Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1569 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 20.1 1.2 0.9 19.5 13.9 2.2 5.6 1.4 3.7 3.0 6.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 20.1 1.2 0.9 19.5 13.9 2.2 5.6 1.4 3.7 3.0 6.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 1757 784 83 1499 756 177 534 236 191 548 398V/C Ratio(X) 1.31 0.72 0.07 0.52 0.75 0.56 0.60 0.55 0.15 0.92 0.30 0.40Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 334 1912 853 143 1716 853 191 1912 844 191 1912 1006HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 14.3 9.6 35.0 17.8 13.5 33.7 28.5 26.8 34.1 27.2 22.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 160.4 1.3 0.0 3.7 1.9 0.9 2.9 0.8 0.3 43.6 0.3 0.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln10.0 6.3 0.4 0.4 6.7 4.5 1.0 2.3 0.5 2.6 1.2 2.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 193.1 15.7 9.6 38.7 19.7 14.5 36.6 29.3 27.0 77.6 27.4 23.2LnGrp LOS F B A D B B D C C E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 1746 1598 437 501Approach Delay, s/veh 60.0 18.8 30.9 43.7Approach LOS E B C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.7 41.8 7.7 16.2 12.0 36.6 8.0 15.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 3 39.0 * 4 * 39 * 7 35.0 * 4 * 39Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 22.1 4.2 8.1 9.0 21.5 5.7 7.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 9.0 0.0 1.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.8HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 66 1248 200 206 1412 559 185 459 362 512 455 79Future Volume (veh/h) 66 1248 200 206 1412 559 185 459 362 512 455 79Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 66 1248 121 206 1412 327 185 459 182 512 455 68Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 105 1320 589 222 1553 692 213 610 271 546 651 97Arrive On Green 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.21Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1584 1781 3554 1580 3456 3103 461Grp Volume(v), veh/h 66 1248 121 206 1412 327 185 459 182 512 259 264Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1584 1781 1777 1580 1728 1777 1787Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 41.0 6.3 13.8 44.7 17.6 12.3 14.8 13.0 17.6 16.3 16.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 41.0 6.3 13.8 44.7 17.6 12.3 14.8 13.0 17.6 16.3 16.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 1320 589 222 1553 692 213 610 271 546 373 375V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.95 0.21 0.93 0.91 0.47 0.87 0.75 0.67 0.94 0.70 0.70Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 1329 593 222 1553 692 266 1033 459 546 531 535HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.3 36.6 25.7 52.1 31.7 24.0 52.0 47.4 46.7 50.1 44.0 44.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 13.9 0.3 40.9 8.5 0.9 21.2 1.9 2.9 24.3 2.4 2.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.2 19.3 2.4 8.5 19.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 5.3 9.4 7.3 7.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.7 50.6 26.0 93.1 40.2 24.9 73.2 49.3 49.5 74.4 46.4 46.5LnGrp LOS E D C F D C E D D E D DApproach Vol, veh/h 1435 1945 826 1035Approach Delay, s/veh 49.1 43.2 54.7 60.2Approach LOS D D D ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.0 50.7 19.4 30.2 12.1 58.6 24.0 25.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 45 * 18 * 36 * 8 * 52 * 19 * 35Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.8 43.0 14.3 18.4 6.4 46.7 19.6 16.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.7 0.2 2.8 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.0HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 205 1721 318 415 1712 350 314 672 305 249 907 231Future Volume (veh/h) 205 1721 318 415 1712 350 314 672 305 249 907 231Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 1721 183 415 1712 243 314 672 183 249 907 207Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 211 1736 184 384 1853 574 282 1008 450 299 827 189Arrive On Green 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.29 0.29Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4688 497 3456 5106 1582 3456 3554 1585 3456 2864 653Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 1248 656 415 1712 243 314 672 183 249 562 552Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1702 1780 1728 1702 1582 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1740Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 49.2 49.6 15.0 43.4 15.6 11.0 22.5 12.6 9.6 39.0 39.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 49.2 49.6 15.0 43.4 15.6 11.0 22.5 12.6 9.6 39.0 39.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 211 1261 659 384 1853 574 282 1008 450 299 513 503V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.08 0.92 0.42 1.12 0.67 0.41 0.83 1.10 1.10Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 211 1261 659 384 1853 574 282 1008 450 358 513 503HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.3 42.3 42.4 60.0 41.2 32.4 62.0 42.7 39.1 60.7 48.0 48.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 53.2 22.9 33.6 69.3 8.4 0.6 88.2 1.7 0.6 11.3 68.3 69.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln9.9 23.8 27.0 10.1 18.9 5.9 8.2 9.9 4.9 4.7 26.7 26.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 112.5 65.1 76.0 129.3 49.6 33.0 150.2 44.4 39.7 72.0 116.3 117.2LnGrp LOS F E E F D C F D D E F FApproach Vol, veh/h 2109 2370 1169 1363 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.1 61.8 72.1 108.6
Approach LOS E E E FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.0 56.0 15.0 44.0 21.0 55.0 15.7 43.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 * 50 * 11 * 39 * 16 * 49 * 14 * 36Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 51.6 13.0 41.0 17.5 45.4 11.6 24.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.1 3.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.0HCM 6th LOS ENotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.6Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 87 52 131 65 49 174Future Vol, veh/h 87 52 131 65 49 174Conflicting Peds, #/hr 22 39 0 22 39 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 87 52 131 65 49 174Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 497 242 0 0 235 0 Stage 1 203 ----- Stage 2 294 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 532 797 - - 1332 - Stage 1 831 ----- Stage 2 756 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 483 739 - - 1283 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 562 ----- Stage 1 800 ----- Stage 2 712 -----Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 1.7HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 562 739 1283 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.155 0.07 0.038 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.6 10.2 7.9 -HCM Lane LOS - - B B A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.2 0.1 - 11 Hf. 1111 tt-t 'f' 1111 +t 'f' 1111 -tf.
11 .,, f. 11 +
HCM 6th AWSC
6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 6IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.3Intersection LOS BMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 118 0 75 0 0 0 101 307 0 0 269 56Future Vol, veh/h 118 0 75 0 0 0 101 307 0 0 269 56Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 118 0 75 0 0 0 101 307 0 0 269 56Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 10.7 0 9.7 10.9
HCM LOS B - A BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 62%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 0% 82% 0% 0% 0% 38%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 101 154 154 101 92 0 0 179 146LT Vol 101 0 0 101 17 0 0 0 0Through Vol 0 154 154 0 0 0 0 179 90RT Vol 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 56Lane Flow Rate 101 154 154 101 92 0 0 179 146Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.182 0.255 0.181 0.198 0.153 0 0 0.303 0.235Departure Headway (Hd) 6.495 5.99 4.239 7.011 6.022 7.061 6.075 6.075 5.803Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 552 600 844 512 595 0 0 592 619Service Time 4.23 3.725 1.973 4.751 3.762 4.816 3.81 3.81 3.538HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.183 0.257 0.182 0.197 0.155 0 0 0.302 0.236HCM Control Delay 10.7 10.8 7.9 11.5 9.9 9.8 8.8 11.4 10.3HCM Lane LOS BBABANNBBHCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0 0 1.3 0.9 HCM 6th AWSC7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 7IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 9.1Intersection LOS AMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 4 368 15 2 312 43Future Vol, veh/h 4 368 15 2 312 43Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 368 15 2 312 43Number of Lanes 2 12012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2Conflicting Approach Left NB WBConflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3Conflicting Approach RightSB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0HCM Control Delay 7.8 8.8 10.4HCM LOS A A BLane NBLn1 NBLn2WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 1% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 71% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 29% 0% 99% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 10 7 3 185 184 156 170 29LT Vol 0 0 3 1 0 156 156 0Through Vol 10 5 0 0 0 0 14 29RT Vol 0 2 0 184 184 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 10 7 3 185 184 156 170 29Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.017 0.011 0.004 0.247 0.157 0.255 0.276 0.029Departure Headway (Hd) 6.04 5.838 5.997 4.806 3.064 5.884 5.842 3.641Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 587 607 598 749 1168 615 618 989Service Time 3.832 3.631 3.721 2.53 0.788 3.584 3.542 1.341HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.012 0.005 0.247 0.158 0.254 0.275 0.029HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.7 8.7 9.1 6.4 10.6 10.8 6.4HCM Lane LOS AAAAABBAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0 0 1 0.6 1 1.1 0.1 "i 4> "i +t. "i +t. "i ,ft
HCM 6th AWSC
8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 8IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh18.9Intersection LOS CMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 79 271 146 32 209 140 88 193 19 178 355 36Future Vol, veh/h 79 271 146 32 209 140 88 193 19 178 355 36Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222Mvmt Flow 79 271 146 32 209 140 88 193 19 178 355 36Number of Lanes 1 20120120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3 3 3 3Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3HCM Control Delay 19.5 18.6 16 20HCM LOS C C C CLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 77% 0% 100% 38% 0% 100% 33% 0% 100% 77%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 23% 0% 0% 62% 0% 0% 67% 0% 0% 23%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 88 129 83 79 181 236 32 139 210 178 237 154LT Vol 88 0 0 79 0 0 32 0 0 178 0 0Through Vol 0 129 64 0 181 90 0 139 70 0 237 118RT Vol 0 0 19 0 0 146 0 0 140 0 0 36Lane Flow Rate 88 129 83 79 181 236 32 139 210 178 237 154Geometry Grp 888888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.243 0.338 0.215 0.207 0.449 0.559 0.087 0.358 0.511 0.458 0.576 0.368Departure Headway (Hd) 9.952 9.452 9.292 9.444 8.944 8.512 9.743 9.243 8.775 9.255 8.755 8.592Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 361 381 386 380 403 423 368 389 411 390 412 418Service Time 7.714 7.214 7.054 7.2 6.7 6.268 7.499 6.999 6.532 7.007 6.507 6.344HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.244 0.339 0.215 0.208 0.449 0.558 0.087 0.357 0.511 0.456 0.575 0.368HCM Control Delay 15.9 17 14.6 14.7 18.8 21.6 13.4 17.1 20.4 19.6 22.8 16.3HCM Lane LOS C C B B C C B C C C C CHCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.8 2.3 3.3 0.3 1.6 2.8 2.3 3.5 1.7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 31 487 336 1272 1551 62Future Volume (Veh/h) 31 487 336 1272 1551 62Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 31 487 336 1272 1551 62Pedestrians 1 1 1Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh) 5Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 2892 808 1614vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 2892 808 1614tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 0 0 16cM capacity (veh/h) 2 323 400Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 21 497 336 636 636 1034 579Volume Left 21 10 336 0000Volume Right 0 487 0 0 0 0 62cSH 2 82 400 1700 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 10.28 6.06 0.84 0.37 0.37 0.61 0.34Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 198 0000Control Delay (s) Err Err 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS F F EApproach Delay (s) Err 9.7 0.0Approach LOS FIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1389.4Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15 'f"i .,, 'i ++ ti.
'i ti. 'i ti. 'i ti.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/27/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 31 487 336 1272 1551 62Future Volume (veh/h) 31 487 336 1272 1551 62Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 31 339 336 1272 1551 43Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 797 365 359 2460 1598 44Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.69 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1585 1781 3647 3625 98Grp Volume(v), veh/h 31 339 336 1272 779 815Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1585 1781 1777 1777 1853Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 24.4 21.7 20.0 49.9 50.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 24.4 21.7 20.0 49.9 50.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 797 365 359 2460 804 838V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.93 0.94 0.52 0.97 0.97Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 891 409 359 2464 806 840HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.9 43.9 45.9 8.6 31.2 31.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 25.8 31.7 0.2 24.2 24.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 22.1 12.4 6.4 25.1 26.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 69.7 77.5 8.8 55.4 55.7LnGrp LOS C E E A E EApproach Vol, veh/h 370 1608 1594Approach Delay, s/veh 66.8 23.2 55.5Approach LOS E C ETimer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 85.3 31.4 28.0 57.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.9 30.1 23.5 52.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 26.4 23.7 52.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.9 0.5 0.0 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.1HCM 6th LOS D HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 10Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 63 503 385 128 192 54Future Volume (veh/h) 63 503 385 128 192 54Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 503 385 89 192 37Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 289 1162 1080 247 319 284Arrive On Green 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.18Sat Flow, veh/h 196 3175 2965 657 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 266 237 237 192 37Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1668 1617 1777 1752 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 0.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 0.4Prop In Lane 0.21 0.38 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 843 608 668 659 319 284V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.44 0.35 0.36 0.60 0.13Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1823 1639 1801 1776 2246 1999HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.6 7.6 7.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.8 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.9 5.2 4.9 4.9 9.5 7.2LnGrp LOS A A A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 566 474 229Approach Delay, s/veh 5.1 4.9 9.1Approach LOS A A ATimer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.1 8.1 12.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 25.5 20.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 4.0 4.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 0.6 2.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.7HCM 6th LOS A 'f"i .,, 1i ++ ti.
HCM 6th TWSC
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 4Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 745 106 214 533 15 167Future Vol, veh/h 745 106 214 533 15 167Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 225 - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 866 123 249 620 17 194Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 989 0 1736 495 Stage 1 - - - - 928 - Stage 2 - - - - 808 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 695 - 79 520 Stage 1 - - - - 345 - Stage 2 - - - - 399 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 695 - 51 520Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 51 - Stage 1 - - - - 345 - Stage 2 - - - - 256 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 3.7 23.6HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 51 520 - - 695 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.342 0.373 - - 0.358 -HCM Control Delay (s) 108.6 16 - - 13 -HCM Lane LOS F C - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 1.7 - - 1.6 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 147 676 71 189 540 119 39 178 133 80 221 149Future Volume (veh/h) 147 676 71 189 540 119 39 178 133 80 221 149Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 173 795 57 222 635 99 46 209 75 94 260 113Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 286 1301 581 348 1365 694 125 480 209 186 542 373Arrive On Green 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.15Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1550 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 795 57 222 635 99 46 209 75 94 260 113Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1550 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 10.6 1.4 3.6 7.8 2.2 0.8 3.1 2.6 1.5 3.9 3.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 10.6 1.4 3.6 7.8 2.2 0.8 3.1 2.6 1.5 3.9 3.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 1301 581 348 1365 694 125 480 209 186 542 373V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.61 0.10 0.64 0.47 0.14 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.51 0.48 0.30Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1190 3672 1638 1190 3672 1723 893 1530 667 1190 1530 814HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.7 15.0 12.1 25.1 13.4 9.8 27.3 23.1 22.8 26.7 22.5 18.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 3.3 0.4 1.3 2.4 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.5 1.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.2 15.7 12.2 26.5 13.8 9.9 28.0 23.7 23.8 28.3 23.1 18.7LnGrp LOS C B B C B A C C C C C BApproach Vol, veh/h 1025 956 330 467 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.4 16.3 24.3 23.1
Approach LOS B B C CTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 27.3 6.1 13.9 9.8 28.3 7.1 12.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 60.0 * 15 * 25 * 20 60.0 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 12.6 2.8 5.9 4.8 9.8 3.5 5.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 8.7 0.0 1.7 0.3 6.9 0.2 1.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.8HCM 6th LOS BNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. ++ r ++ r ++ r ++ r
H r
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 44 718 101 186 711 165 53 130 119 96 165 49Future Volume (veh/h) 44 718 101 186 711 165 53 130 119 96 165 49Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 807 85 209 799 138 60 146 52 108 185 47Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 120 1268 565 256 1540 682 117 275 232 281 235 60Arrive On Green 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 1781 3554 1574 1781 1870 1579 3456 1439 366Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 807 85 209 799 138 60 146 52 108 0 232Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1781 1777 1574 1781 1870 1579 1728 0 1805Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 14.7 2.8 8.8 12.7 4.2 2.5 5.6 2.3 2.3 0.0 9.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 14.7 2.8 8.8 12.7 4.2 2.5 5.6 2.3 2.3 0.0 9.6Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 1268 565 256 1540 682 117 275 232 281 0 294V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.64 0.15 0.82 0.52 0.20 0.51 0.53 0.22 0.38 0.00 0.79Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 574 2520 1123 574 2520 1116 574 724 611 1114 0 698HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.7 20.8 17.0 32.2 16.1 13.6 35.0 30.6 29.2 33.8 0.0 31.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.9 0.2 6.2 0.5 0.2 3.5 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.0 4.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.9 5.5 1.0 4.0 4.5 1.4 1.2 2.5 0.9 1.0 0.0 4.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 21.7 17.2 38.4 16.5 13.9 38.5 32.2 29.6 34.6 0.0 35.8LnGrp LOS D C B D B B D C C C A DApproach Vol, veh/h 941 1146 258 340Approach Delay, s/veh 22.1 20.2 33.1 35.5Approach LOS C C C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s16.2 33.7 10.1 17.7 10.2 39.6 11.3 16.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30 * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 16.7 4.5 11.6 4.0 14.7 4.3 7.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 11.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 11.5 0.3 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 90 755 104 157 865 174 113 256 134 88 269 111Future Volume (veh/h) 90 755 104 157 865 174 113 256 134 88 269 111Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 96 803 77 167 920 117 120 272 61 94 286 90Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 184 1253 559 399 1297 578 378 588 262 354 422 130Arrive On Green 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2662 819Grp Volume(v), veh/h 96 803 77 167 920 117 120 272 61 94 189 187Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1705Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 14.3 2.5 3.4 16.8 3.8 2.4 5.2 2.5 1.9 7.6 7.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 14.3 2.5 3.4 16.8 3.8 2.4 5.2 2.5 1.9 7.6 7.9Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 1253 559 399 1297 578 378 588 262 354 281 270V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.64 0.14 0.42 0.71 0.20 0.32 0.46 0.23 0.27 0.67 0.69Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 471 2347 1046 913 2347 1047 913 1174 523 913 587 563HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.2 20.5 16.7 31.1 20.6 16.5 31.1 28.6 27.4 31.3 30.0 30.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 2.8 3.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.6 5.3 0.8 1.3 6.2 1.3 1.0 2.1 0.9 0.8 3.3 3.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 21.2 16.8 31.4 21.5 16.7 31.3 29.1 27.9 31.5 32.8 33.3LnGrp LOS C C B C C B C C C C C CApproach Vol, veh/h 976 1204 453 470Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 22.4 29.5 32.7Approach LOS C C C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s13.7 32.7 12.3 17.0 12.8 33.6 11.8 17.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25 * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 16.3 4.4 9.9 5.9 18.8 3.9 7.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.4 0.1 1.9 0.1 8.8 0.1 1.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC
5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 5.2Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 114 99 75 158 119 151Future Vol, veh/h 114 99 75 158 119 151Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00100Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 134 116 88 186 140 178Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 641 182 0 0 275 0 Stage 1 182 - - - - - Stage 2 459 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 439 861 - - 1288 - Stage 1 849 - - - - - Stage 2 636 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 390 860 - - 1287 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 472 - - - - - Stage 1 848 - - - - - Stage 2 566 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 12.9 0 3.6HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 472 860 1287 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.284 0.135 0.109 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.6 9.8 8.1 -HCM Lane LOS - - C A A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.5 0.4 - HCM 6th AWSC6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 9IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 15.2Intersection LOS CMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 237 5 147 0 1 9 167 120 1 29 222 147Future Vol, veh/h 237 5 147 0 1 9 167 120 1 29 222 147Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 279 6 173 0 1 11 196 141 1 34 261 173Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 16.3 10.8 14.6 14.8
HCM LOS C B B BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 18% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 98% 0% 3% 10% 0% 100% 33%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 2% 0% 79% 90% 0% 0% 67%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 167 80 41 204 185 10 29 148 221LT Vol 167 0 0 204 33 0 29 0 0Through Vol 0 80 40 0 5 1 0 148 74RT Vol 0 0 1 0 147 9 0 0 147Lane Flow Rate 196 94 48 240 218 12 34 174 260Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.437 0.196 0.1 0.512 0.407 0.026 0.074 0.352 0.491Departure Headway (Hd) 7.999 7.486 7.469 7.693 6.723 7.874 7.782 7.271 6.794Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 450 480 480 470 536 454 461 494 530Service Time 5.737 5.224 5.207 5.43 4.461 5.629 5.518 5.006 4.529HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.436 0.196 0.1 0.511 0.407 0.026 0.074 0.352 0.491HCM Control Delay 16.8 12 11 18.3 14 10.8 11.1 13.9 15.9HCM Lane LOS C B B C BBBBCHCM 95th-tile Q 2.2 0.7 0.3 2.9 2 0.1 0.2 1.6 2.7 11 .,, f.
11 tf.
HCM 6th AWSC
7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 11IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 9.6Intersection LOS AMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 26 240 32 17 315 40Future Vol, veh/h 26 240 32 17 315 40Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 31 282 38 20 371 47Number of Lanes 212012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0
HCM Control Delay 8 9 10.9
HCM LOS A A BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 7% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 61% 0% 93% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 21 28 17 129 120 158 171 27LT Vol 0 0 17 9 0 158 158 0Through Vol 21 11 0 0 0 0 13 27RT Vol 0 17 0 120 120 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 25 33 20 151 141 185 201 31Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.042 0.052 0.035 0.215 0.129 0.301 0.324 0.031Departure Headway (Hd) 6.093 5.759 6.223 5.104 3.288 5.84 5.801 3.597Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 582 626 575 702 1084 610 615 978Service Time 3.893 3.459 3.964 2.844 1.028 3.626 3.587 1.382HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.053 0.035 0.215 0.13 0.303 0.327 0.032HCM Control Delay 9.2 8.8 9.2 9.2 6.5 11.2 11.4 6.5HCM Lane LOS AAAAABBAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.4 1.3 1.4 0.1 HCM 6th AWSC8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 13IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 13.7Intersection LOS BMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 73 159 75 7 319 80 98 89 6 38 70 46Future Vol, veh/h 73 159 75 7 319 80 98 89 6 38 70 46Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 86 187 88 8 375 94 115 105 7 45 82 54Number of Lanes 120120110111Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3332Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3233Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 2333HCM Control Delay 12.6 15.5 13.2 11.9HCM LOS B C B BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 94% 0% 100% 41% 0% 100% 57% 0% 100% 0%Vol Right, % 0% 6% 0% 0% 59% 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 100%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 98 95 73 106 128 7 213 186 38 70 46LT Vol 98 0 73 0 0 7 0 0 38 0 0Through Vol 0 89 0 106 53 0 213 106 0 70 0RT Vol 0 6 0 0 75 0 0 80 0 0 46Lane Flow Rate 115 112 86 125 151 8 250 219 45 82 54Geometry Grp 88888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.261 0.236 0.188 0.256 0.291 0.017 0.495 0.416 0.105 0.181 0.108Departure Headway (Hd) 8.135 7.591 7.888 7.381 6.965 7.635 7.129 6.825 8.427 7.922 7.215Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 442 473 455 486 515 469 505 528 425 453 496Service Time 5.881 5.336 5.634 5.127 4.711 5.378 4.872 4.568 6.18 5.675 4.968HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.26 0.237 0.189 0.257 0.293 0.017 0.495 0.415 0.106 0.181 0.109HCM Control Delay 13.7 12.7 12.5 12.7 12.6 10.5 16.7 14.4 12.2 12.4 10.8HCM Lane LOS BBBBBBCBBBBHCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.9 0.7 1 1.2 0.1 2.7 2 0.3 0.7 0.4 "i .ft "i ti. "i ti. "i t. "i t .,,
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 14 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 11 195 374 497 405 54Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 195 374 497 405 54Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 214 411 546 445 59Pedestrians 3 3 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh) 5Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1576 258 507vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1576 258 507tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 80 71 61cM capacity (veh/h) 61 737 1051Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 8 218 411 273 273 297 207Volume Left 8 4 411 0000Volume Right 0 214 0 0 0 0 59cSH 61 751 1051 1700 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.29 0.39 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.12Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 30 47 0000Control Delay (s) 72.9 12.9 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS F B BApproach Delay (s) 15.0 4.6 0.0Approach LOS CIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.6Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 16IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.6Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 46 229 209 343 112 31Future Vol, veh/h 46 229 209 343 112 31Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 54 269 246 404 132 36Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 650 0 - 0 825 448 Stage 1 - - - - 448 - Stage 2 - - - - 377 -Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 936 - - - 342 611 Stage 1 - - - - 644 - Stage 2 - - - - 694 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 936 - - - 319 611Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 319 - Stage 1 - - - - 600 - Stage 2 - - - - 694 -Approach EB WB SBHCM Control Delay, s 1.5 0 21.2HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2Capacity (veh/h) 936 - - - 319 611HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - - - 0.413 0.06HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - - 24 11.3HCM Lane LOS A A - - C BHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 1.9 0.2 'f"i .,, 1i ++ ti.
HCM 6th TWSC
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 787 14 80 737 5 155Future Vol, veh/h 787 14 80 737 5 155Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 225 - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 874 16 89 819 6 172Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 890 0 1470 445 Stage 1 - - - - 882 - Stage 2 - - - - 588 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 757 - 118 561 Stage 1 - - - - 365 - Stage 2 - - - - 518 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 757 - 104 561Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 104 - Stage 1 - - - - 365 - Stage 2 - - - - 457 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1 15.1HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 104 561 - - 757 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 0.307 - - 0.117 -HCM Control Delay (s) 41.6 14.2 - - 10.4 -HCM Lane LOS E B - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 1.3 - - 0.4 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 234 672 46 37 604 264 65 160 102 94 91 153Future Volume (veh/h) 234 672 46 37 604 264 65 160 102 94 91 153Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 263 755 37 42 679 255 73 180 37 106 102 97Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 403 1560 696 89 1238 645 169 398 175 202 432 377Arrive On Green 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.12Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1564 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 263 755 37 42 679 255 73 180 37 106 102 97Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1564 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 8.3 0.7 0.7 8.4 6.2 1.1 2.6 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 8.3 0.7 0.7 8.4 6.2 1.1 2.6 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.7Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 1560 696 89 1238 645 169 398 175 202 432 377V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.48 0.05 0.47 0.55 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.21 0.53 0.24 0.26Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1260 3887 1734 1260 3887 1827 945 1620 713 1260 1620 907HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 11.0 8.8 26.3 14.4 11.5 25.3 22.8 22.1 25.1 21.8 17.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.3 0.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 2.2 0.2 0.3 2.6 1.9 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 11.3 8.9 29.2 14.9 12.1 26.0 23.5 22.7 26.7 22.0 17.3LnGrp LOS C B A C B B C C C C C BApproach Vol, veh/h 1055 976 290 305 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 14.8 24.0 22.1
Approach LOS B B C CTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.4 30.1 6.7 11.7 11.4 25.1 7.2 11.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 60.0 * 15 * 25 * 20 60.0 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 10.3 3.1 4.7 6.0 10.4 3.6 4.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.0 0.1 0.7 0.5 8.7 0.2 1.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6HCM 6th LOS BNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. ++ r ++ r ++ r ++ r
H r
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 37 678 107 115 767 299 99 247 198 274 245 44Future Volume (veh/h) 37 678 107 115 767 299 99 247 198 274 245 44Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 737 70 125 834 190 108 268 111 298 266 41Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 105 1200 535 167 1325 590 142 349 295 412 358 55Arrive On Green 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.23 0.23Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1583 1781 1870 1580 3456 1583 244Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 737 70 125 834 190 108 268 111 298 0 307Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1583 1781 1870 1580 1728 0 1826Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 13.9 2.4 5.5 15.4 6.8 4.8 10.9 4.9 6.6 0.0 12.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 13.9 2.4 5.5 15.4 6.8 4.8 10.9 4.9 6.6 0.0 12.5Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 1200 535 167 1325 590 142 349 295 412 0 413V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.61 0.13 0.75 0.63 0.32 0.76 0.77 0.38 0.72 0.00 0.74Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 2444 1090 557 2444 1089 557 702 593 1080 0 685HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.2 22.1 18.3 35.3 20.6 17.9 36.1 30.9 28.5 33.9 0.0 28.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.9 0.2 6.5 0.9 0.5 8.2 3.6 0.8 2.4 0.0 2.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.8 5.3 0.9 2.5 5.8 2.4 2.3 5.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 5.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 23.0 18.5 41.8 21.4 18.4 44.2 34.5 29.3 36.4 0.0 31.4LnGrp LOS D C B D C B D C C D A CApproach Vol, veh/h 847 1149 487 605Approach Delay, s/veh 23.4 23.1 35.4 33.9Approach LOS C C D CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.5 33.0 11.4 23.1 9.7 35.8 14.5 19.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30 * 25 * 55 * 25 * 30Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 15.9 6.8 14.5 3.7 17.4 8.6 12.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 9.7 0.2 1.5 0.1 12.4 0.9 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 114 931 170 222 929 187 168 361 163 133 485 128Future Volume (veh/h) 114 931 170 222 929 187 168 361 163 133 485 128Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 119 970 102 231 968 136 175 376 102 139 505 119Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 169 1281 571 344 1298 578 341 786 350 335 624 146Arrive On Green 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.22 0.22Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 3456 3554 1582 3456 3554 1585 3456 2847 667Grp Volume(v), veh/h 119 970 102 231 968 136 175 376 102 139 314 310Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1728 1777 1582 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1737Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 21.6 4.0 5.8 21.4 5.4 4.3 8.3 4.8 3.4 15.1 15.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 21.6 4.0 5.8 21.4 5.4 4.3 8.3 4.8 3.4 15.1 15.3Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 1281 571 344 1298 578 341 786 350 335 390 381V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.76 0.18 0.67 0.75 0.24 0.51 0.48 0.29 0.42 0.81 0.81Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 395 1972 879 767 1972 878 767 986 440 767 493 482HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 25.3 19.7 39.1 24.9 19.9 38.5 30.6 29.2 38.3 33.3 33.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 1.1 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 7.6 8.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.5 8.5 1.4 2.4 8.4 1.9 1.8 3.4 1.8 1.4 7.1 7.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.6 26.5 19.9 40.0 26.0 20.1 39.0 31.0 29.7 38.6 41.0 41.7LnGrp LOS D C B D C C D C C D D DApproach Vol, veh/h 1191 1335 653 763Approach Delay, s/veh 27.4 27.8 32.9 40.8Approach LOS C C C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.0 38.5 12.9 24.8 13.5 38.9 12.7 24.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25 * 20 * 50 * 20 * 25Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 23.6 6.3 17.3 7.8 23.4 5.4 10.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 8.8 0.2 2.3 0.1 9.0 0.2 2.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC
5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.4Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 51 28 70 38 26 93Future Vol, veh/h 51 28 70 38 26 93Conflicting Peds, #/hr 22 39 0 22 39 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 60 33 82 45 31 109Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 337 183 0 0 166 0 Stage 1 144 - - - - - Stage 2 193 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 658 859 - - 1412 - Stage 1 883 - - - - - Stage 2 840 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 606 796 - - 1360 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 653 - - - - - Stage 1 850 - - - - - Stage 2 804 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 10.6 0 1.7HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 653 796 1360 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.092 0.041 0.022 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.1 9.7 7.7 -HCM Lane LOS - - B A A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 0.1 - HCM 6th AWSC6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 9IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 8.8Intersection LOS AMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 63 2 40 0 3 16 54 164 0 17 144 30Future Vol, veh/h 63 2 40 0 3 16 54 164 0 17 144 30Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 74 2 47 0 4 19 64 193 0 20 169 35Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 9.2 8.4 8.3 9.1
HCM LOS A A A ALane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 16% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 100% 0% 4% 16% 0% 100% 62%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% 84% 0% 0% 38%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 54 82 82 55 50 19 17 96 78LT Vol 54 0 0 55 8 0 17 0 0Through Vol 0 82 82 0 2 3 0 96 48RT Vol 0 0 0 0 40 16 0 0 30Lane Flow Rate 64 96 96 64 59 22 20 113 92Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.105 0.146 0.099 0.112 0.086 0.033 0.033 0.171 0.132Departure Headway (Hd) 5.947 5.444 3.701 6.243 5.269 5.389 5.958 5.455 5.185Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 600 655 959 571 674 657 598 654 687Service Time 3.708 3.205 1.46 4.02 3.046 3.18 3.724 3.221 2.95HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.107 0.147 0.1 0.112 0.088 0.033 0.033 0.173 0.134HCM Control Delay 9.4 9.1 6.9 9.8 8.5 8.4 8.9 9.4 8.7HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 11 .,, f.
11 tf.
HCM 6th AWSC
7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 11IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 7.8Intersection LOS AMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 2 197 8 1 167 23Future Vol, veh/h 2 197 8 1 167 23Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 2 232 9 1 196 27Number of Lanes 212012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0
HCM Control Delay 6.8 8.1 8.9
HCM LOS A A ALane NBLn1 NBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 1% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 73% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 99% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 5 4 1 99 99 84 91 15LT Vol 0 0 1 1 0 84 83 0Through Vol 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 15RT Vol 0 1 0 98 99 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 6 4 2 117 116 98 107 18Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.01 0.006 0.002 0.144 0.087 0.149 0.162 0.016Departure Headway (Hd) 5.456 5.265 5.632 4.44 2.699 5.474 5.432 3.2Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 657 680 639 812 1335 652 657 1093Service Time 3.184 2.993 3.334 2.142 0.4 3.233 3.191 0.994HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.144 0.087 0.15 0.163 0.016HCM Control Delay 8.2 8 8.3 7.9 5.7 9.2 9.2 6HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAHCM 95th-tile Q 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0 HCM 6th AWSC8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 13IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 12.4Intersection LOS BMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 44 154 81 17 118 75 50 103 10 95 190 21Future Vol, veh/h 44 154 81 17 118 75 50 103 10 95 190 21Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 50 175 92 19 134 85 57 117 11 108 216 24Number of Lanes 120120110111Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3332Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3233Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 2333HCM Control Delay 11.8 11.7 12.1 13.5HCM LOSB B B BLane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 91% 0% 100% 39% 0% 100% 34% 0% 100% 0%Vol Right, % 0% 9% 0% 0% 61% 0% 0% 66% 0% 0% 100%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 50 113 44 103 132 17 79 114 95 190 21LT Vol 50 0 44 0 0 17 0 0 95 0 0Through Vol 0 103 0 103 51 0 79 39 0 190 0RT Vol 0 10 0 0 81 0 0 75 0 0 21Lane Flow Rate 57 128 50 117 150 19 89 130 108 216 24Geometry Grp 88888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.122 0.256 0.105 0.23 0.278 0.042 0.181 0.246 0.224 0.417 0.041Departure Headway (Hd) 7.729 7.167 7.591 7.085 6.651 7.778 7.271 6.806 7.464 6.961 6.258Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 464 502 473 508 540 461 493 527 484 520 576Service Time 5.467 4.905 5.33 4.823 4.389 5.518 5.011 4.545 5.164 4.661 3.958HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.255 0.106 0.23 0.278 0.041 0.181 0.247 0.223 0.415 0.042HCM Control Delay 11.5 12.4 11.2 11.9 11.9 10.9 11.6 11.8 12.3 14.5 9.2HCM Lane LOS BBBBBBBBBBAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 1 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.7 1 0.9 2 0.1 "i .ft "i ti. "i ti. "i t. "i t .,,
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: North Walton Avenue & Lassen Boulevard 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 14 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 18 268 186 680 829 33Future Volume (Veh/h) 18 268 186 680 829 33Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 288 200 731 891 35Pedestrians 1 1 1Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh) 5Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1676 465 927vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 1676 465 927tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 70 47 73cM capacity (veh/h) 62 543 732Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 13 294 200 366 366 594 332Volume Left 13 6 200 0000Volume Right 0 288 0 0 0 0 35cSH 62 555 732 1700 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.53 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.20Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 77 28 0000Control Delay (s) 76.7 19.9 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS F C BApproach Delay (s) 22.3 2.5 0.0Approach LOS CIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.9% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC10: Franklin Road & El Margarita Road 06/19/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 16IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.2Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 35 269 206 70 104 32Future Vol, veh/h 35 269 206 70 104 32Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 50Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 38 292 224 76 113 35Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 300 0 - 0 630 262 Stage 1 - - - - 262 - Stage 2 - - - - 368 -Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1261 - - - 446 777 Stage 1 - - - - 782 - Stage 2 - - - - 700 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1261 - - - 430 777Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 430 - Stage 1 - - - - 754 - Stage 2 - - - - 700 -Approach EB WB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 14.8HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2Capacity (veh/h) 1261 - - - 430 777HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - - 0.263 0.045HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - - 16.3 9.9HCM Lane LOS A A - - C AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1 0.1 'f"i .,, 1i ++ ti.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: El Margarita Road & SR 20 06/28/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1378 198 400 993 28 312Future Volume (veh/h) 1378 198 400 993 28 312Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1378 126 400 993 28 218Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 1488 135 435 2677 237 211Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.24 0.75 0.13 0.13Sat Flow, veh/h 3387 300 1781 3647 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 740 764 400 993 28 218Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1816 1781 1777 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 30.9 31.4 17.3 7.6 1.1 10.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.9 31.4 17.3 7.6 1.1 10.5Prop In Lane 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 803 821 435 2677 237 211V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.37 0.12 1.03Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 821 839 440 2721 237 211HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 20.5 29.1 3.3 30.2 34.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.6 16.5 24.1 0.1 0.2 71.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.7 14.3 9.4 1.0 0.5 7.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.0 37.0 53.2 3.4 30.4 105.6LnGrp LOS D D D A C FApproach Vol, veh/h 1504 1393 246Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 17.7 97.1Approach LOS D B FTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 23.8 40.2 64.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 19.5 36.5 60.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 19.3 33.4 9.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.9HCM 6th LOS C HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Harter Parkway & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 275 1264 118 324 1010 223 69 331 238 150 406 279Future Volume (veh/h) 275 1264 118 324 1010 223 69 331 238 150 406 279Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 275 1264 75 324 1010 158 69 331 109 150 406 180Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 313 1497 667 313 1497 749 138 633 278 179 675 444Arrive On Green 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.19 0.19Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1558 3456 3554 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 275 1264 75 324 1010 158 69 331 109 150 406 180Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1558 1728 1777 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 24.7 2.2 7.0 17.8 4.5 1.5 6.5 4.8 3.3 8.1 7.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 24.7 2.2 7.0 17.8 4.5 1.5 6.5 4.8 3.3 8.1 7.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 313 1497 667 313 1497 749 138 633 278 179 675 444V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.84 0.11 1.04 0.67 0.21 0.50 0.52 0.39 0.84 0.60 0.40Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 313 1608 717 313 1608 799 179 1791 786 179 1791 942HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.8 20.1 13.6 35.2 18.1 11.9 36.4 28.8 28.1 36.4 28.7 22.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.4 4.3 0.1 60.6 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 27.8 0.8 0.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.3 9.2 0.8 5.3 6.2 1.5 0.6 2.7 1.8 2.0 3.3 2.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.2 24.5 13.7 95.8 19.3 12.1 37.4 29.4 28.9 64.2 29.4 23.1LnGrp LOS E C B F B B D C C E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 1614 1492 509 736Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 35.2 30.4 35.0Approach LOS C D C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.0 38.6 7.1 19.7 12.0 38.6 8.0 18.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5 * 5 6.0 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 7 35.0 * 4 * 39 * 7 35.0 * 4 * 39Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 26.7 3.5 10.1 8.1 19.8 5.3 8.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.6HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Tharp Road & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 80 1334 189 337 1304 309 99 243 219 180 305 88Future Volume (veh/h) 80 1334 189 337 1304 309 99 243 219 180 305 88Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 1334 142 337 1304 230 99 243 82 180 305 75Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 108 1503 670 362 2009 893 116 483 215 234 394 95Arrive On Green 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.20 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.14 0.14Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1584 1781 3554 1580 1781 3554 1578 3456 2837 687Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 1334 142 337 1304 230 99 243 82 180 189 191Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1584 1781 1777 1580 1781 1777 1578 1728 1777 1747Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 42.8 7.0 22.9 31.1 9.1 6.8 7.8 5.8 6.3 12.7 13.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 42.8 7.0 22.9 31.1 9.1 6.8 7.8 5.8 6.3 12.7 13.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 1503 670 362 2009 893 116 483 215 234 247 242V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.89 0.21 0.93 0.65 0.26 0.86 0.50 0.38 0.77 0.77 0.79Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 188 1556 694 376 2009 893 116 1009 448 252 519 510HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 32.9 22.6 48.3 18.4 13.6 57.1 49.4 48.5 56.5 51.2 51.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.5 6.8 0.3 29.1 0.9 0.3 43.2 0.8 1.1 12.7 5.0 5.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.7 18.7 2.6 12.8 11.9 3.2 4.4 3.5 2.4 3.1 5.9 6.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.4 39.7 22.8 77.4 19.3 13.9 100.3 50.2 49.7 69.2 56.2 56.9LnGrp LOS E D C E B B F D D E E EApproach Vol, veh/h 1556 1871 424 560 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.5 29.1 61.8 60.6
Approach LOS D C E ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s30.0 58.1 13.0 22.1 12.5 75.7 13.3 21.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 5 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 54 * 8 * 36 * 13 * 67 * 9 * 35Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.9 44.8 8.8 15.0 7.4 33.1 8.3 9.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.4 0.0 2.1 0.1 20.3 0.0 1.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.9HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary4: North Walton Avenue & SR 20 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 165 1401 195 294 1590 325 211 479 251 165 501 198Future Volume (veh/h) 165 1401 195 294 1590 325 211 479 251 165 501 198Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 165 1401 135 294 1590 205 211 479 107 165 501 149Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 192 1668 161 335 1744 541 334 851 380 330 642 190Arrive On Green 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.24 0.24Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4736 456 3456 5106 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 2693 796Grp Volume(v), veh/h 165 1007 529 294 1590 205 211 479 107 165 330 320Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1702 1788 1728 1702 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1712Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 25.2 25.3 7.8 27.6 9.1 5.5 11.0 5.1 4.2 16.1 16.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 25.2 25.3 7.8 27.6 9.1 5.5 11.0 5.1 4.2 16.1 16.3Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 1199 630 335 1744 541 334 851 380 330 424 408V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.91 0.38 0.63 0.56 0.28 0.50 0.78 0.78Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 1211 636 335 1761 547 335 1302 581 335 651 627HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.7 27.6 27.6 41.3 29.2 23.1 40.3 31.0 28.8 39.8 33.0 33.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.1 5.5 9.9 21.4 7.7 0.5 2.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 3.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.1 10.3 11.6 4.2 11.6 3.2 2.4 4.5 1.9 1.8 7.1 6.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.8 33.1 37.5 62.7 36.9 23.6 43.2 31.6 29.2 40.3 36.3 36.7LnGrp LOS E C D E D C D C C D D DApproach Vol, veh/h 1701 2089 797 815 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 39.2 34.4 37.3
Approach LOSDDCDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.0 38.7 13.0 27.1 15.0 37.7 12.9 27.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5 * 5 * 6 * 4 * 5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9 * 33 * 9 * 34 * 10 * 32 * 9 * 34Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 27.3 7.5 18.3 10.5 29.6 6.2 13.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.1 3.5 0.0 2.1 0.1 3.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.8HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 'I t+f. 'l'I +++ .,, 'l'I t+ .,, 'l'I tf.
HCM 6th TWSC
5: El Margarita Road & Spirit Drive 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 9Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 211 185 140 286 223 282Future Vol, veh/h 211 185 140 286 223 282Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00100Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 150 0 - - 110 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 211 185 140 286 223 282Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1013 284 0 0 427 0 Stage 1 284 - - - - - Stage 2 729 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 265 755 - - 1132 - Stage 1 764 - - - - - Stage 2 477 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 212 754 - - 1131 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 313 - - - - - Stage 1 763 - - - - - Stage 2 383 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 25.2 0 4HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 313 754 1131 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.674 0.245 0.197 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 37.3 11.3 9 -HCM Lane LOS - - E B A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 4.6 1 0.7 - HCM 6th AWSC6: Harter Parkway & Spirit Drive 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 6IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 52.9Intersection LOS FMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 443 5 275 0 1 9 312 224 2 28 415 275Future Vol, veh/h 443 5 275 0 1 9 312 224 2 28 415 275Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 443 5 275 0 1 9 312 224 2 28 415 275Number of Lanes 110010120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 1 2 3 3 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 59.8 14.2 37.7 58
HCM LOS F B E FLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 19% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 97% 0% 1% 10% 0% 100% 33%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 3% 0% 79% 90% 0% 0% 67%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 312 149 77 377 346 10 28 277 413LT Vol 312 0 0 377 66 0 28 0 0Through Vol 0 149 75 0 5 1 0 277 138RT Vol 0 0 2 0 275 9 0 0 275Lane Flow Rate 312 149 77 377 346 10 28 277 413Geometry Grp 888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.867 0.393 0.202 0.996 0.822 0.03 0.077 0.716 1.014Departure Headway (Hd) 10.155 9.634 9.615 9.668 8.692 11.159 9.839 9.319 8.835Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 359 376 376 377 419 323 366 390 413Service Time 7.855 7.334 7.315 7.368 6.392 8.859 7.539 7.019 6.535HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.869 0.396 0.205 1 0.826 0.031 0.077 0.71 1HCM Control Delay 52.6 18.4 14.7 77.3 40.8 14.2 13.4 32.3 78.3HCM Lane LOS F C B F E B B D FHCM 95th-tile Q 8.2 1.8 0.7 11.7 7.6 0.1 0.2 5.4 12.8 11 .,, f.
11 tf.
HCM 6th AWSC
7: Harter Parkway & Lassen Boulevard 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 7IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh13.7Intersection LOS BMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 49 449 60 32 589 75Future Vol, veh/h 49 449 60 32 589 75Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 49 449 60 32 589 75Number of Lanes 2 12012Approach WB NB SBOpposing Approach SB NBOpposing Lanes 0 3 2Conflicting Approach Left NB WBConflicting Lanes Left 2 0 3Conflicting Approach RightSB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 0HCM Control Delay 10.4 10.5 16.7HCM LOS B B CLane NBLn1 NBLn2WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 0% 0% 100% 7% 0% 100% 92% 0%Vol Thru, % 100% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%Vol Right, % 0% 62% 0% 93% 100% 0% 0% 0%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 40 52 33 241 225 295 320 50LT Vol 0 0 33 16 0 295 295 0Through Vol 40 20 0 0 0 0 25 50RT Vol 0 32 0 225 225 0 0 0Lane Flow Rate 40 52 33 241 224 294 320 50Geometry Grp 88777888Degree of Util (X) 0.081 0.099 0.064 0.393 0.253 0.539 0.581 0.06Departure Headway (Hd) 7.315 6.877 6.998 5.876 4.056 6.592 6.552 4.34Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 489 519 512 612 882 548 553 825Service Time 5.077 4.639 4.743 3.621 1.8 4.323 4.284 2.071HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.082 0.1 0.064 0.394 0.254 0.536 0.579 0.061HCM Control Delay 10.7 10.4 10.2 12.4 8.2 16.8 18 7.3HCM Lane LOS BBBBACCAHCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.9 1 3.2 3.7 0.2 HCM 6th AWSC8: Tharp Road & Lassen Boulevard 06/26/2023TIS for the Harter Parkway Career Technical Building Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 8IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 34Intersection LOS DMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 135 294 138 13 580 150 178 166 11 71 131 82Future Vol, veh/h 135 294 138 13 580 150 178 166 11 71 131 82Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222Mvmt Flow 135 294 138 13 580 150 178 166 11 71 131 82Number of Lanes 1 20120120120Approach EB WB NB SBOpposing Approach WB EB SB NBOpposing Lanes 3 3 3 3Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WBConflicting Lanes Left 3 3 3 3Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EBConflicting Lanes Right 3 3 3 3HCM Control Delay 22 56.1 20.3 17HCM LOS C F C CLane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 83% 0% 100% 42% 0% 100% 56% 0% 100% 35%Vol Right, % 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 58% 0% 0% 44% 0% 0% 65%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 178 111 66 135 196 236 13 387 343 71 87 126LT Vol 178 0 0 135 0 0 13 0 0 71 0 0Through Vol 0 111 55 0 196 98 0 387 193 0 87 44RT Vol 0 0 11 0 0 138 0 0 150 0 0 82Lane Flow Rate 178 111 66 135 196 236 13 387 343 71 87 126Geometry Grp 888888888888Degree of Util (X) 0.52 0.308 0.182 0.372 0.513 0.591 0.035 0.973 0.835 0.213 0.249 0.343Departure Headway (Hd) 10.518 10.018 9.902 9.917 9.417 9.008 9.559 9.059 8.753 10.781 10.281 9.825Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCap 342 359 362 362 382 401 374 398 412 332 348 366Service Time 8.299 7.799 7.683 7.688 7.188 6.779 7.328 6.828 6.522 8.565 8.065 7.608HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.52 0.309 0.182 0.373 0.513 0.589 0.035 0.972 0.833 0.214 0.25 0.344HCM Control Delay 24.2 17.2 14.9 18.5 21.8 24.1 12.7 69.3 42.9 16.5 16.5 17.7HCM Lane LOS C C B C C C B F E C C CHCM 95th-tile Q 2.9 1.3 0.7 1.7 2.8 3.7 0.1 11.3 7.9 0.8 1 1.5 'I tf. 'I tf. 'I tf.