COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 4 9 Le a ve nw o rth Stree t • Suite 30 3 • WATER BU R Y, C T 0 67 0 2 -1 4 03 (2 0 3 )75 7 -0 5 35 • We b S ite : www. c o g cn v. or g • E-Ma il: c o gc nv @co gc nv .or g BEACON FALLS BETHLEHEM CHESHIRE MIDDLEBURY NAUGATUCK OXFORD PROSPECT SOUTHBURY THOMASTON WATERBURY WATERTOWN WOLCOTT WOODBURY March 1, 2013 MEMORANDUM 0 30113 To: Barbara Ricozzi, CT DOT Ed St. John, First Selectman, Town of Middlebury Edgar Wynkoop, CT DOT From : Pat Gallagher, Regional Planner Subject : Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection Operation Study, Town of Middlebury Introduction COGCNV staff conducted turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 63 and Route 64 in September 2011 and February 2012. A split I- 84 interchange at exit 17 forces vehicles to go through the intersection as they make their way on and off the highway . The intersection was last analyzed in the I-84 West of Waterbury (WoW) Needs and Deficiencies Study, which recommend s a new connector road that would allow vehicles entering and exiting I-84 to bypass the intersection (Project 174-309). CT DOT has put the project on hold indefinitely due to lack of funding . Staff collected data on traffic volumes and accident records to study the existing conditions and the effects of a connector road and other short-term improvements on traffic operations at the intersection. Study Area Route 63 and Route 64 are functionally-classified as urban principal arterials . Route 64 connects to Chase Parkway and I-84 to the east and to Middlebury to the west. Route 63 connects to I- 84 and Naugatuck to the south and to Watertown in the north. Complicating matters, two local roads intersect with Route 63 just north (Richardson Dr.) and just south (Old Waterbury Rd.) of the intersection with Route 64. A map of the intersection is presented in Figure 1. Views from each approach are shown in Figure 2. Land uses in the adjacent area are primarily medium-density residential. The entrance to Memorial Middle School is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the intersection, which may generate school bus and passenger vehicle traffic during school pick-up and drop-off hours . The Middlebury public works garage and transfer station are located nearby off of Route 63 between Route 64 and I- 84. Figure 1. Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection in Middlebury Figure 2 . Views of the Intersection of Route 63 & Route 64: 2010 Route 64 looking east towards I – 84 EB ramp Route 63 Route 63 Route 64 looking west towards Middlebury Route 63 looking north towards Watertown Route 63 looking south towards I – 84 WB ramp Source: 2010 Photolog, CT DOT Traffic Volumes Manual turning movement counts were conducted during the weekday morning (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.) peak periods in February 2012 and evening (4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in September 2011. The peak hours are 7: 45 a.m. to 8: 45 a.m and 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Appendix A . In addition to turning movement counts, average daily traffic counts (ADT) were obtained from CT DOT. In 2011, the ADTs on Route 64 were 20,500 vehicles per day (vpd) to the east of the intersection and 13,7 00 vpd to the west. ADTs on Route 63 were 13,800 vpd to the south of the intersection and 13,9 00 vpd to the north. Accident/Safety Analysis The Route 63 portion of the intersection is listed on C T DOT’s Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS), which covers a period from 2006 to 2008. To get a more complete understanding of the types, causes, and severity of accidents, detailed records were obtained f rom the CT Crash data repository f or 2007 to 2009. A summary of accident data for the intersection can be seen in Tables 1 to 4 below, while a collision diagram showing traffic accidents is presented in Figure 3.The Route 63 and Route 64 intersection saw 86 accidents during this period with 52 on the Route 63 approaches and 34 on the Route 64 approaches . The most common types of accidents were rear-end collisions (68.6%), sideswipe-opposite direction (9.3%), and turning-opposite direction (9.3%) . A majority of accidents (62.8%) were caused by vehicles following too closely. The approaches that exhibited the highest frequency of rear-end accidents were SB and WB with 21 and 15 accidents respectively. The prevalence of rear-end accidents suggests that drivers may be speeding up in an attempt to get through the intersection before the phase is over . Poor sightlines on Route 64 east of the intersection caused by a vertical curve may not give drivers enough time to slow down while approaching the intersection, especially if there is a long queue . The intersection saw the highest number of accidents between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., accounting for 24.4% of all accidents. Table 1. Traffic Accidents by Collision Type: 2007- 2009 Route 64 Route 63 Type Number Percent Number Percent Rear – End 24 70.6% 35 67.3% Sideswipe – Same Direction 4 11.8% 4 7.7% Turning – Opposite Direction 3 8.8% 5 9.6% Turning – Intersecting Paths 2 5.9% 2 3.8% Backing 1 2.9% 2 3.8% Fixed Object – – 2 3.8% Unknown – – 1 1.9% Turning – Same Direction – – 1 1.9% Total 34 100% 52 100% Source: CT Crash Data Repository: 2007 – 2009 , Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection, Middlebury Table 2 . Traffic Accidents by Contributing Factor: 2007-2009 Route 64 Route 63 Contributing Factor Number Percent Number Percent Following Too Closely 23 67.6% 31 59.6% Improper Lane Change 3 8.8% 5 9.6% Failed to Grant Right of Way 3 8.8% 5 9.6% Violated Traffic Control 2 5.9% – – Speed Too Fast for Conditions 1 2.9% 4 7.7% Unsafe Backing 1 2.9% 2 3.8% Driver Lost Control 1 2.9% 1 1.9% Driverless Vehicle – – 1 1.9% Improper Turning Maneuver – – 1 1.9% Unknown – – 1 1.9% Unsafe Right Turn on Red – – 1 1.9% Total 34 100% 52 100% Source: CT Crash Data Repository: 2007-2009, Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection, Middlebury Table 3 . Traffic Accidents by Injury Severity: 2007- 2009 Route 64 Route 63 Injury Severity Number Percent Number Percent A – Injuries 2 1.6% – – B – Injuries 6 4.8% 1 1.9% C – Injuries 10 7.9% 14 26.9% Property Damage Only 108 85.7% 37 71.2% Total 126 100% 52 100% Source: CT Crash Data Repository: 2007-2009, Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection, Middlebury Table 4 . Traffic Accidents by Vehicle Type: 2007-2009 Route 64 Route 63 Vehicle Type Number Percent Number Percent Automobile 77 79.4% 88 85.4% Single – Unit Truck 14 14.4% 11 10.7% Passenger Van 4 4.1% 2 1.9% Truck – Trailer 1 1.0% – – Commercial Bus 1 1.0% – – Unknown – – 1 1 Farm Equipment – – 1 1 Total 97 100% 103 100% Source: CT Crash Data Repository: 2007 – 2009 , Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection, Middlebury Figure 3. Collision Diagram for Route 63 and Route 64 in Middlebury Analysis of Existing Conditions Analysis was performed in Synchro to measure volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratios and Level of Service (LOS) for both the morning and evening peak hours. V/C ratios compare vehicle volumes to the carrying capacity of a road. Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined by vehicle delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration , and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is related to signal control, geometry, traffic volumes, and incidents. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on variables such as the quality of progression, cycle length, the green ratio, and the V/C ratio for the lane group in question. There are six defined Levels of Service, with “A” being the most favorable and “F” being the least favorable. A breakdown of the LOS classifications can be seen in Figure 5. Source: CT Crash Data Repository: 2007 – 2009 , Route 63 and Route 64 Intersection, Middlebury Table 5. LOS Classification for Signalized Intersections LOS Delay per Vehicle A Less than 10 seconds B 10 – 20 seconds C 20 – 35 seconds D 35 – 55 seconds E 55 – 80 seconds F 80 seconds or more Based on the analysis of existing operations, the intersection of Route 63 and Route 64 in Middlebury operates at LOS D during the morning peak and LOS E during the evening peak . A breakdown of the analysis by lane group can be seen in Table 6 for the morning peak and Table 7 for the evening peak. Major findings include: – Route 63 and Route 64 have near equal traffic volumes during peak hours. 53 percent of movements are thru movements, 24 percent are right-turning, and 23 percent are left- turning. This makes prioritizing turning movements difficult. – 38 percent of vehicles during the morning peak and 33 percent of vehicles during the evening peak access Route 64 eastbound towards the I-84 east ramp – Traffic volumes are greater during the evening peak than during the morning peak. – One lane group during the morning peak and three lane groups during the evening peak operate at or above capacity. All of these lane groups operate at LOS F. – One lane group during the morning peak and five lane groups during the evening peak experience delays of over 1 minute. Southbound left-turning vehicles on Route 63 experience delays of over 4 minutes during the morning peak. Table 6. Morning Peak Hour LOS Analysis Approach Lane Group V/C Ratio Delay by Lane Group (sec/veh) LOS by Lane Group EB L 0.17 12.9 B EB TR 0.87 45.4 D WB L 0.78 35.3 D WB T 0.37 22.7 C WB R 0.28 2.1 A NB L 0.55 58.2 E NB T 0.74 50.7 D NB R 0.59 9.7 A SB L 1.41 246.3 F SB T 0.75 48.1 D SB R 0.18 5.5 A Table 7. Evening Peak Hour LOS Analysis Approach Lane Group V/C Ratio Delay by Lane Group (veh/sec) LOS by Lane Group EB L 0. 61 28.7 C EB TR 0.9 4 64.0 E WB L 1.11 116.8 F WB T 0.87 51.3 D WB R 0.23 3.9 A NB L 0.61 65.6 E NB T 0.98 83.0 F NB R 0.55 9.6 A SB L 1.06 111.0 F SB T 0.62 37.8 D SB R 0.21 10.8 B Improvement Options Signal timing/optimization, especially during peak hours, was initially considered as a near-term improvement option for the intersection, which operates at LOS D during the morning peak and LOS E during the evening peak. However, because of the high volume- to-capacity ratio of this intersection during peak hours, signal timing/optimization did not offer any improvement in LOS. Delay per vehicle was reduced by 11.4 seconds in the morning and only 1.9 seconds in the evening. In both cases, signal optimization reduced delay on the worst-performing lane groups, while increasing delay on the better-performing lane groups. Signal optimization was last performed in 2008, and traffic patterns have likely not changed enough to warrant an additional optimization . Because of these results, signal optimization is not seen as a st andalone way of improving operations. Instead, signal optimization should be done along with one or more of the improvement options listed below. The best improvement options are those that increase capacity at the intersection — such as extending storage lanes and adding new turning lanes — or those that reduce the peak hour traffic volume traveling through the intersection . Due to the high number of accidents at this location, efforts should also be made to minimize safety deficiencies. Several improvement options were analyzed in Synchro to examine their impacts on LOS and delay. The results can be seen in Table 8 . Table 8. Synchro Analysis of Improvement Options Scenario Time LOS Average Delay Per Vehicle Delay Reduction per Vehicle Existing Conditions Baseline AM D 5 3 . 0 seconds — PM E 57.2 seconds — Signal Optimization Signal optimization AM D 41.6 seconds 1 1 . 4 seconds PM E 55.3 seconds 1.9 seconds Improvement Option A Extended storage lanes, exclusive right AM C 34. 9 seconds 1 8 . 1 seconds turn lane on 64 WB , signal optimization . PM D 49.3 seconds 7.9 seconds Improvement Option B New connector road, signal AM C 34.9 seconds 1 8 . 1 seconds optimization PM D 44.5 seconds 12.7 seconds Hybrid Option Improvement options A and B AM C 3 1 . 6 seconds 2 1 . 4 seconds combined PM D 42.9 seconds 14.3 seconds Improvement Option C Improvement option B plus left turn AM C 23.7 seconds 2 9 . 3 seconds proh ibition on Rte 63 SB PM C 25.2 seconds 32.0 seconds Improvement Option A: Minimizing Geometric Deficiencies Both field observations and the Synchro analysis revealed vehicles queued beyond the capacity of the storage lanes. In some cases, thru traffic blocked the left and right turning lanes, while in other cases, queued left-turning vehicles blocked access to the intersection for thru and right- turning vehicles. Right-turning vehicles on Route 64 EB frequently experienced cycle failures because of the shared lane with thru vehicles . Creating a new exclusive right-hand turn lane on Route 64 EB would reduce delay for both right-turning and thru vehicles. There is enough room within the right- of-way to accommodate a new right-turn lane on Route 64, although it would require the relocation of signs and utilities. On the east side of Route 64, a rock formation makes it challenging to extend storage lanes. A Synchro analysis was performed to examine the impacts of extending left hand turn lanes on the three other approaches to 500 feet and adding new right-turn lane on Route 64 EB (Figure 4). The traffic signal was optimized to account for the extended storage lanes. The analysis showed that the intersection would operate at LOS C in the morning and LOS D in the evening with these improvements. Delay per vehicle would be reduced by 18.1 seconds in the morning and 7.9 seconds in the evening. All of the improvements came from the new exclusive right-turn lane on Route 64 EB. Extended left-turn lanes did n ot improve operations at the intersection. Figure 4: Suggested Geometric Improvements Improvement Option B: Exit 17 Interchange Redesign — New Connector Road The long-term solution involves a complete redesign of the I- 84 exit 17 interchange. Exit 17 is a split interchange, forcing vehicles that are entering and exiting I-84 to go through the intersection. Redesign plans call for a new two-way connector road (Chase Parkway Extension) between the split interchange, allowing vehicles entering and exiting I-84 to bypass the Route 63 and Route 64 intersection (Project 174-309). Two new traffic lights would be installed at either end of the connector road. A Synchro analysis was performed on with new connector to examine its impact on LOS. It was assumed that the connector road would capture 95% of northbound right-turning vehicles and westbound left-turning vehicles. This improvement option (Table 8) would allow the intersection to operate at LOS C in the morning and LOS D in the evening. Delay per vehicle would be reduced by 18.1 seconds in the morning and 12.7 seconds in the evening. A hybrid option that combines the new connector road with extended storage lanes would offer only minor reductions in delay compared to improvement options A or B. Figure 5: Exit 17 Interchange Redesign with New Connector Road and Multi-Use Trail Improvement Option C: New Connector Road plus Left-Turn Prohibition In addition to the new connector road, another option is to implement a left-turn prohibition for southbound vehicles on Route 63 (Table 6). Instead, southbound vehicles would make a left turn at the new connector road to access I-84 EB and Chase Parkway. The left-turn lane at Route 63 SB could be converted to an additional storage lane for thru traffic. This would require a second southbound lane to be added to Route 63 between Route 64 and the new connector road. This improvement option would allow the intersection to operate at LOS C during both the morning and evening. Delay per vehicle would be reduced by 29.3 seconds in the morning and 32 .0 seconds in the evening. Because this option minimizes the number of vehicles turning left at the Route 63 and Route 64 intersection, it allows for longer cycle lengths for thru vehicles. Left-turn prohibition, while offering the greatest reduction in delay, would be difficult to implement politically. Figure 6: Left-Turn Prohibition on Route 63 Southbound Existing Movements Proposed Left-Turn Prohibition Improvement Option D: Expand Park-and-Ride Lot and Promote Alternative Modes Another way of reducing peak hour traffic volumes at t he intersection of Route 63 and Route 64 is to promote carpooling and alternative modes to driving. While this option would not provide a standalone answer to congestion issues at this intersection, it would help supplement the other improvement options . The park-and-ride lot on Route 63 is the most heavily used in the region, with an average occupancy rate of 95% since 2005. In 2012, the lot was used at or above its maximum capacity for three of the four commuter lot counts. Expanding the park- and-ride lot would encourage more people to carpool and reduce the number of single- occupancy vehicles passing through the intersection. Improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure could also reduce the number of vehicles passing through the intersection. The Middlebury Greenway runs through the center of town and ends just south of the intersection . The I – 84 West of Waterbury Needs and Deficiencies Study recommended extending the Middlebury Greenway along the new connector road (Figure 5). A continuation of the multi-use trail and the installation of sidewalks or bicycle lanes along Chase Parkway would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to access Naugatuck Valley Community College and a number of commercial and healthcare facilities. The Route 64 – Chase Parkway Corridor is served by the 42 bus, although service in Middlebury is limited. Seven roundtrip busses stop on Route 64 opposite Kelly Road. This bus route is plagued by low ridership, which will likely remain low due to the high rate of vehicle ownership in Middlebury and the lack of adequate sidewalks and bike paths nearby. Improvement Option E: Minimizing Safety Deficiencies Poor visibility on the eastern portion of Route 64 caused by a vertical curve could be augmented by a flashing beacon and warning sign placed several hundred feet from the intersection. A flashing beacon and warning sign would warn drivers of a red light or long queue well in advance, giving them time to slow down before reaching the back of the queue. Flashing beacons can also be installed on the other legs of the intersection to improve driver awareness. While this would not offer any direct operational improvements at the intersection, it could help reduce the number of rear-end accidents and improve overall intersection safety. A long-term solution to the poor sightlines would involve re-grading Route 64 to eliminate the ve rtical curve. Rear-end collisions could also be reduced by eliminating driver confusion through improved signage to alert motorists of the intersection configuration. Adding advanced lane control signs will further ensure that motorists are aware of where they need to be before arriving at the intersection. This option could be particularly effective in the SB direction on Route 63, which has a high volume of left turns during the peak period. The existing sign is about 235 f eet from the stop bar, where the taper begins. It does not appear to be retroreflective, reducing its overall effectiveness. Pavement marking arrows on the approach are badly faded and may also need improvement. Conclusions The intersection of Route 63 and Route 64 in Middlebury is one of the most congested in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. High traffic volumes, poor intersection geometry, and the split exit 17 interchange on I-84 all contribute to the poor operations of the Route 63 and Route 64 intersection. Safety improvements, such as improving signage and road markings, should be addressed in the short-term. Because of the complexity of the intersection and cost of long- t erm improvement options, the project has been put on hold indefinitely. The improvement options put forward in this report should be examined in greater detail once a funding source has been identified. Appendix A: Peak Period Traffic Counts: AM/PM Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total 7:00 38347 0 7915128 7 3 153 26057 3 122 314819 4 102 456 7:15 56539 0 118 13132 12 1 158 106248 0 120 476316 1 127 523 7:30 663811 1 116 18127 11 0 156 76666 3 142 286625 2 121 535 7:45 866821 0 175 12130 10 1 153 237759 1 160 638238 2 185 673 8:00 534914 0 116 23119 21 1 164 147859 3 154 637064 0 197 631 8:15 666616 0 148 19129 17 2 167 188372 0 173 597650 0 185 673 8:30 605413 0 127 129223 0 127 178150 4 152 576648 2 173 579 8:45 65599 1 134 15134 15 0 164 215958 0 138 566162 3 182 618 Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftTrucks Approach Total 4:00 559012 1 158 169034 0 140 307159 2 162 52120 56 0 228 688 4:15 486918 1 136 129637 0 145 246259 1 146 53125 55 1 234 661 4:30 707710 0 157 189135 1 145 299085 0 204 52136 42 2 232 738 4:45 657923 1 168 208930 4 143 197159 1 150 57137 71 1 266 727 5:00 779712 1 187 18113 27 0 158 359780 0 212 51124 59 1 235 792 5:15 87104 20 0 211 11114 32 0 157 368260 0 178 46122 59 2 229 775 5:30 589510 1 164 147827 1 120 317156 0 158 50128 77 0 255 697 5:45 647115 0 150 168732 1 136 255420 0 9931122 66 0 219 604 Peak Hour Int. Total Rte 63 SB Rte 64 WBRte 63 NB Rte 64 EB Int. Total Rte 64 WBRte 63 NB Rte 64 EB Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2011 4:00 – 6:00 P.M.Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:00 – 9:00 A.M.Route 63 and Route 64, Middlebury Route 63 and Route 64, Middlebury Time Rte 63 SB Time Appendix B : Synchro Analysis O f Existing Operations: AM/PM Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline Route 63 & Route 64T 2/29/2012 7b45 Af Route 63 & Route 64 R2/29/2012 7b45 Af BaRseline Synchro 8 Light ReportR Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 71 470 66 200 294 242 64 237 265 240 319 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 14 11 11 16 Storage Length (ft) 250250 325 325 200200 250125 Storage Lanes 10 1 1 11 11 Taper Length (ft) 25252525 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.9820.8500.8500.850 Flt Protected 0.9500.9500.9500.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 1786 0 1728 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Flt Permitted0.5720.1390.9500.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1051 1786 0 253 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Right Turn on Red YesYesYesYes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7310315107 Link Speed (mph) 30303030 Link Distance (ft) 356392365295 Travel Time (s) 8.18.98.36.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.96 0.78 0.76 0.87 0.77 0.83 0.96 0.78 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 92 522 73 241 306 310 84 272 344 289 332 92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 595 0 241 306 310 84 272 344 289 332 92 Number of Detectors 3 13 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 56 656 315 315 56 181 181 56 106 106 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 00 300 300 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detector 1 Position(fRt) 0 00 300 300 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 66 15 15 6 6 6 6 6 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s)0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fRt) 25 252525 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Detector 3 Position(fRt) 50 505050 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6666 Detector 3 Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.00.00.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+ov Prot NA custom Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 65 2 3 7 4 4 3 8 8 Permitted Phases 6 62 2 2 4 48 8 Detector Phase 1 65 2 3 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline Route 63 & Route 64T 2/29/2012 7b45 Af Route 63 & Route 64 R2/29/2012 7b45 Af BaRseline Synchro 8 Light ReportR Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR finimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.05.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 finimum Split (s) 8.1 26.08.1 26.0 9.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 15.1 41.015.1 41.0 16.0 16.0 31.0 31.0 16.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 14.6% 39.8% 14.6% 39.8% 15.5% 15.5% 30.1% 30.1% 15.5% 30.1% 30.1% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.03.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.1 2.00.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.1 6.03.1 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall fodeNone C-fax None C-fax None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 49.8 39.757.6 46.2 64.2 9.1 20.3 20.3 12.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.390.56 0.45 0.62 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.860.77 0.36 0.28 0.55 0.74 0.59 1.44 0.75 0.18 Control Delay 12.8 44.733.8 22.6 2.1 58.2 50.7 9.7 257.9 48.7 5.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.8 44.733.8 22.6 2.1 58.2 50.7 9.7 257.9 48.7 5.5 LOS B DC C A E D A F D A Approach Delay 40.418.331.5127.9 Approach LOS DBC F Intersection Summary Area TypebOther Cycle Lengthb 103.1 Actuated Cycle LengthRb 103.1 Offsetb 0 (0%), ReferenceRd to phase 2bWBTL and 6RbEBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycleb 90 Control Typeb ActuateRd-Coordinated faximum v/c Ratiob 1.44 Intersection Signal RDelayb 53.0 Intersection LOSb D Intersection CapacityR Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) R15 Splits and Phasesb R 2b Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline Route 63 & Route 64T 9/14/2011 4b30 PM foute 63 & foute 64 4ob30 PM 9/14/2011 Basoeline Synchro 8 Light feporot Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 124 407 67 231 519 206 65 357 299 284 340 119 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 14 11 11 16 Storage Length (ft) 250250 325 325 200200 250125 Storage Lanes 10 1 1 11 11 Taper Length (ft) 25252525 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.9790.8500.8500.850 Flt Protected 0.9500.9500.9500.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 1780 0 1728 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Flt Permitted0.1330.1100.9500.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 244 1780 0 200 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 fight Turn on fed YesYesYesYes Satd. Flow (fTOf) 8175316102 Link Speed (mph) 30303030 Link Distance (ft) 352391365295 Travel Time (s) 8.08.98.36.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.95 0.90 0.71 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.83 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Shared Lane Traffic (%o) Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 526 0 285 546 229 92 415 348 338 386 143 Number of Detectors 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 56 6 56 315 315 56 181 181 56 106 106 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 00 300 300 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detector 1 Position(fto) 0 00 300 300 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 66 15 15 6 6 6 6 6 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fto) 25 252525 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.00.00.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 50 505050 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6666 Detector 3 Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 65 2 3 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases6 62 2 2 4 48 8 Detector Phase 1 65 2 3 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline Route 63 & Route 64T 9/14/2011 4b30 PM foute 63 & foute 64 4ob30 PM 9/14/2011 Basoeline Synchro 8 Light feporot Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Minimum Split (s) 8.1 26.08.1 26.0 9.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 15.1 41.015.1 41.0 24.0 16.0 31.0 31.0 24.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 13.6% 36.9% 13.6% 36.9% 21.6% 14.4% 27.9% 27.9% 21.6% 27.9% 27.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.0 35.0 12.0 35.0 20.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 Yellow Time (s)3.0 4.03.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 All-fed Time (s) 0.1 2.00.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.1 6.03.1 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 fecall Mode None Min None C-Min None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hro) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 46.7 34.5 51.3 37.1 63.6 9.7 25.0 25.0 20.5 37.8 37.8 Actuated g/C fatio0.42 0.310.46 0.33 0.57 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.34 0.34 v/c fatio 0.61 0.941.11 0.87 0.23 0.61 0.98 0.55 1.06 0.62 0.21 Control Delay 28.7 64.0 116.8 51.3 3.9 65.6 83.0 9.6 111.0 37.8 10.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.7 64.0 116.8 51.3 3.9 65.6 83.0 9.6 111.0 37.8 10.8 LOS C EF D A E F A F D B Approach Delay 56.658.651.261.9 Approach LOS EED E Intersection Summary Area TypebOther Cycle Lengthb 111.1 Actuated Cycle Lengthob 111.1 Offsetb 0 (0%), feferenceod to phase 2bWBTL, Starot of Green Natural Cycleb 100 Control Typeb Actuated-Cooordinated Maximum v/c fatiob 1.11 Intersection Signal oDelayb 57.2 Intersection LOSb E Intersection Capacityo Utilization 89.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 1o5 Splits and Phasesb o 2b Appendix C : Results of Signal Optimization Analyses: AM/PM Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing Route 63 & Route 64T 2/29/2012 7b45 Af Route 63 & Route 64 R2/29/2012 7b45 Af AlRternative Phasing/RTiming Synchro 8 Light Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 71 470 66 200 294 242 64 237 265 240 319 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 14 11 11 16 Storage Length (ft) 250250 325 325 200200 250125 Storage Lanes 10 1 1 11 11 Taper Length (ft) 25252525 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.9820.8500.8500.850 Flt Protected 0.9500.9500.9500.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 1786 0 1728 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Flt Permitted0.5730.1220.9500.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1052 1786 0 222 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Right Turn on Red YesYesYesYes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8293259160 Link Speed (mph) 30303030 Link Distance (ft) 356392365295 Travel Time (s) 8.18.98.36.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.96 0.78 0.76 0.87 0.77 0.83 0.96 0.78 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 92 522 73 241 306 310 84 272 344 289 332 92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 595 0 241 306 310 84 272 344 289 332 92 Number of Detectors 3 13 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 56 656 315 315 31 181 181 56 106 106 Trailing Detector (ftR) 0 00 300 300 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detector 1 Position(fRt) 0 00 300 300 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 66 15 15 0 6 6 6 6 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s)0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fRt) 25 252525 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6666 Detector 2 Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Detector 3 Position(fRt) 50 5050 Detector 3 Size(ft) 66 6 Detector 3 TypeCl+ExCl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.00.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+ov Prot NA custom Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 65 2 3 7 4 4 3 8 8 Permitted Phases 6 62 2 2 4 48 8 Detector Phase 1 65 2 3 7 4 4 3 8 8 Switch Phase Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing Route 63 & Route 64T 2/29/2012 7b45 Af Route 63 & Route 64 R2/29/2012 7b45 Af AlRternative Phasing/RTiming Synchro 8 Light Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR finimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.05.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 finimum Split (s) 8.1 26.08.1 26.0 9.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 8.6 36.612.4 40.4 19.0 11.0 22.0 22.0 19.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 9.6% 40.7% 13.8% 44.9% 21.1% 12.2% 24.4% 24.4% 21.1% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.03.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.1 2.00.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.1 6.03.1 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall fodeNone fin None C-fin None None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 39.0 30.646.3 36.4 57.4 6.7 15.6 15.6 15.0 25.8 25.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.340.51 0.40 0.64 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.970.87 0.40 0.27 0.66 0.83 0.67 1.00 0.64 0.15 Control Delay 12.7 60.949.5 21.9 1.8 65.5 59.0 16.9 93.8 35.5 1.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.7 60.949.5 21.9 1.8 65.5 59.0 16.9 93.8 35.5 1.0 LOS B ED C A E E B F D A Approach Delay 54.422.439.154.7 Approach LOS DCDD Intersection Summary Area TypebOther Cycle Lengthb 90 Actuated Cycle Lengthb R90 Offsetb 0 (0%), Referenced Rto phase 2bWBTL, Start Rof Green Natural Cycleb 90 Control Typeb Actuated-RCoordinated faximum v/c Ratiob 1.00 Intersection Signal DRelayb 41.6 Intersection LOSb D Intersection Capacity UtRilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) R15 Splits and Phasesb R 2b Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing Route 63 & Route 64T 11/14/2011 4:b0 PM Rfute 6b & Rfute 64 1u1/14/2011 4:b0 PM Aluternative Phasing/Tuiming Synchrf 8 Light Repfrtu Page 1 Lane Grfup EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Cfnfiguratifns Vflume (vph) 124 407 67 2b1 519 206 65 b57 299 284 b40 119 Ideal Flfw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 14 11 11 16 Stfrage Length (ft) 250250 b25 b25 200200 250125 Stfrage Lanes 10 1 1 11 11 Taper Length (ft) 25252525 Lane Util. Factfr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.9790.8500.8500.850 Flt Prftected 0.9500.9500.9500.950 Satd. Flfw (prft) 1745 1780 0 1728 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Flt Permitted0.2070.1250.9500.950 Satd. Flfw (perm) b80 1780 0 227 1881 1615 1728 1881 1706 1728 1818 1812 Right Turn fn Red YesYesYesYes Satd. Flfw (RTOR) 8121294144 Link Speed (mph) b0b0b0b0 Link Distance (ft) b52b91b65295 Travel Time (s) 8.08.98.b6.7 Peak Hfur Factfr 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.95 0.90 0.71 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.8b Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Grfup Flfw (vph) 1b9 526 0 285 546 229 92 415 b48 bb8 b86 14b Number ff Detectfrs b 1 b 1 1 b 1 1 b 1 1 Detectfr Template Leading Detectfr (ft) 56 6 56 b15 b15 56 181 181 56 106 106 Trailing Detectfr (ft) 0 00 b00 b00 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detectfr 1 Pfsitifn(ft) 0 00 b00 b00 0 175 175 0 100 100 Detectfr 1 Size(ft) 6 66 15 15 6 6 6 6 6 6 Detectfr 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detectfr 1 Channel Detectfr 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detectfr 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detectfr 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detectfr 2 Pfsitifn(ft) 25 252525 Detectfr 2 Size(ft) 6666 Detectfr 2 Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detectfr 2 Channel Detectfr 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.00.00.0 Detectfr b Pfsitifn(ft) 50 505050 Detectfr b Size(ft) 6666 Detectfr b Type Cl+ExCl+ExCl+ExCl+Ex Detectfr b Channel Detectfr b Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+fv Prft NA Perm Prft NA Perm Prftected Phases 1 65 2 b 7 4 b 8 Permitted Phases6 62 2 2 4 48 8 Detectfr Phase 1 65 2 b 7 4 4 b 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing Route 63 & Route 64T 11/14/2011 4:b0 PM Rfute 6b & Rfute 64 1u1/14/2011 4:b0 PM Aluternative Phasing/Tuiming Synchrf 8 Light Repfrtu Page 2 Lane Grfup EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Split (s) 8.1 26.08.1 26.0 9.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 Tftal Split (s) 9.0 b5.715.b 42.0 22.0 12.0 27.0 27.0 22.0 b7.0 b7.0 Tftal Split (%) 9.0% b5.7% 15.b% 42.0% 22.0% 12.0% 27.0% 27.0% 22.0% b7.0% b7.0% Maximum Green (s) 5.9 29.712.2 b6.0 18.0 8.0 21.0 21.0 18.0 b1.0 b1.0 Yellfw Time (s) b.0 4.0b.0 4.0 b.0 b.0 4.0 4.0 b.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.1 2.00.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Lfst Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tftal Lfst Time (s) b.1 6.0b.1 6.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extensifn (s) 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Recall Mfde Nfne Min Nfne C-Min Nfne Nfne Nfne Nfne Nfne Nfne Nfne Walk Time (s) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Flash Dfnt Walk (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hru) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) b8.5 29.7 47.9 b6.0 60.0 7.6 21.0 21.0 18.0 bb.4 bb.4 Actuated g/C Ratif0.b8 0.b00.48 0.b6 0.60 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.bb 0.bb v/c Ratif 0.62 0.990.98 0.81 0.2b 0.70 1.05 0.59 1.09 0.64 0.20 Cfntrfl Delay 29.b 71.272.9 b9.8 4.8 7b.4 98.8 11.6 116.b b4.9 5.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tftal Delay 29.b 71.272.9 b9.8 4.8 7b.4 98.8 11.6 116.b b4.9 5.1 LOS C EE D A E F B F C A Apprfach Delay 62.541.160.661.7 Apprfach LOS ED EE Intersectifn Summary Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length:u 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenceud tf phase 2:WBTL, Starut ff Green Natural Cycle: 100 Cfntrfl Type: Actuated-uCffrdinated Maximum v/c Ratif: 1.0u9 Intersectifn Signal uDelay: 55.b Intersectifn LOS: E Intersectifn Capacity uUtilizatifn 89.5% ICU Level ff Service E Analysis Perifd (min) u15 Splits and Phases: u 2: