Traffic Congestion Memo: Route 69 at Scott Road – NVCOG CT – Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments

COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 60 NORTH MAIN ST • 3RD Floor • WATERBURY, CT 06702-1403 (203)757-0535 Web Site: www.cogcnv.org E-Mail: cogcnv@cogcnv.org BEACON FALLS BETHLEHEM CHESHIRE MIDDLEBURY NAUGATUCK OXFORD PROSPECT SOUTHBURY THOMASTON WATERBURY WATERTOWN WOLCOTT WOODBURY November 19, 2012 MEMORANDUM 111912 To: Mark Makuch, CTDOT Robert Chatfield, Mayor, Town of Prospect Scott Roberts, CTDOT From: Joe Perrelli, Senior Planner Subject: Route 69 and Scott Road Intersection Operation Study, Town of Prospect Introduction At the request of the Town of Prospect, COGCNV staff performed turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 69 and Scott Road in March 2012. Residents have reported long delays at the traffic light in the SB direction on Route 69. Through the collection and analysis of current traffic volumes at this location, improvements are proposed for possible programming. There is a project on the region’s STP‐Urban schedule for the Waterbury UA that terminates at this in tersection. The project is Phase III of a reconstruction project that extends to the Prospect ‐Waterbury line. It is scheduled for construction in FFY 2019. If funding becomes available through safety projects, some minor mitigation strategies may be made to improve safety and enhance traffic flow at the intersection. Study Area Route 69 is functionally ‐classified as an Urban Principal Arterial, while Scott Road is classified as a Minor Arterial. Route 69 serves traffic between Waterbury and New Haven and locally between Waterbury and Prospect, while Scott Road serves as a connection to I‐ 84 in Waterbury. A recent connection with Austin Road in Waterbury, under project #114‐ 080, made for more convenient access between Route 69 and I‐ 84, increasing traffic volumes through this intersection. A map of the intersection is shown in Figure 1. Land uses in the vicinity are primarily commercia l and medium ‐density residential with an athletic field located at the intersection. A relatively new age ‐restricted community on Scott Road has also added traffic to Scott Road and Route 69. Half of the planned 488 units have been built. 2 Figure 1. Route 69 and Scott Road Intersection Traffic Volumes Manual turning movement counts were conducted on a typical weekday morning (7:00 a.m. ‐ 9:00 a.m.) and afternoon (4:00 p.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.) during peak periods in March. The peak hours are 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m and 4:30 p.m. ‐ 5:30 p.m. The morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Appendix A. In addition to turning movement counts, average daily traffic (ADT) counts were obtained from CTDOT. In 2009, th e ADTs on Route 69 were 11,800 vehicles per day to the north of the intersection and 15,300 to the south. The ADT on Scott Road was 4,400 vehicl es. Accident Records The intersection of Route 69 and Scott Road does not appear on CTDOT’s most current Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS), which covers the years from 2006 to 2008. SLOSSS identifies intersections and road segments that have more than 15 accidents during the three‐ year period and an actual accident rate above a statistically ‐derived improbable accident rate. The actual accident rate is computed with the act ual rate per million vehicles. The 3 improbable accident rate is generated from accident rate data for similar locations in Connecticut. 1 To get a more complete understanding of the types, severity, and patterns of accidents, detailed accident records from 2008 ‐2010 were obtained from CTDOT. During this period, there were a total of 16 accidents at the intersection. The predominant accident types were rear ‐end collisions (94%) with only a single accident categorized as turning‐ in tersecting paths. The majority of the accidents occurred in clear (75%) and dry (69%) weather conditions in daylight (88%). Eight of the fifteen rear ‐end collisions involve SB vehicles, while six involved NB vehicles and one involved WB vehicles. Tables 1 to 3 summarize accident characteristics based on type, contributing factor, and injury severity. Almost ever y rear ‐end collision can be attributed to vehicles following too closely. However, based on CTDOT’s volume‐ capacity ratio for this segment (0.72 in 2009), traffic on Route 69 has not reached full capacity in this area. The problem may be related to inattentive dr ivers, who are surprised as they approach vehicles stopped at the intersection, causing rear‐end collisions. Figure 2 shows a collision diagram for the intersection. Figure 2. Collision Diagram 1 TASR and SLOSSS data are privileged information and not admissible in court, pursuant to Title 23 USC Section 409. Source: Accident History: 2008‐2010, CTDOT Crash Data and Analysis Unit 4 Table 1. Accidents by Collision Type: 2008‐2010 Type of Collision Count Percent Rear‐End 15 94 Turning ‐Intersecting Paths 1 6 Total 16 100 Table 2. Accidents by Contributing Factor: 2008 ‐2010 Contributing Factor Count Percent Following Too Closely 14 88 Violated Traffic Control 1 6 Speed Too Fast for Conditions 1 6 Total 16 100 Table 3. Accidents by Injury Severity: 2008 ‐2010 Injury Severity Count Percent B‐Injury (Non‐incapacitating Evident Injury) 1 6 C ‐Injury (Possible Injury) 4 25 Property Damage Only 11 69 Total 16 100 Analysis of Existing Operations Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed at the intersection to measure delay and volume ‐to ‐capacity ratios for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of vehicle delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The delay exper ienced by a motorist relates to signal control, geometry, traffic flow, and incidents. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the volume ‐to ‐capacity rat io for the lane group in question. There are six defined Levels of Service, with “A” being the most favorable and “F” being the worst. Based on our analysis of existing operations, the intersection operates at LOS C during 5 both morning and evening peak periods. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C indicates operations with delays between 20 to 35 seconds per vehicle. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of LOS and delay by appro ach. Refer to Appendix B for reports on the analysis of existing operations. Table 4. Morning Peak Hour LOS Analysis Approach Lane Group v/c Ratio Delay by Lane Group (sec/veh) LOS by Lane Group NB LTR 0.53 10.0 B SB LTR 0.71 32.6 C WB LTR 0.72 44.4 D EB LTR 0.06 23.3 C Intersection 0.72 23.4 C LTR ‐ Shared lane for Left, Thru, and Right turns Table 5. Evening Peak Hour LOS Analysis Approach Lane Group v/c Ratio Delay by Lane Group (sec/veh) LOS by Lane Group NB LTR 0.83 23.4 C SB LTR 0.85 36.0 D WB LTR 0.80 48.5 D EB LTR 0.14 26.4 C Intersection 0.85 31.8 C LTR ‐ Shared lane for Left, Thru, and Right turns Proposed Improvements Based on our observations in the field, the intersection seems to function efficiently in maintaining traffic flow. There is an issue with SB left ‐turning vehicles on Route 69 getting stuck at the light as they await a break in oncoming traffic. Due to the geometry of the intersection, there is virtually no shoulder and no room for th rough vehicles to maneuver around left ‐turning vehicles. Also, this maneuver does not receive exclusive green time under the current timing plan. While there are few left ‐turning vehicles in the SB direction (a total of 5 during the peak hour), staff observed long delays and queuing caus ed by their inability to find a sufficient gap in oncoming traffic. Long delays and queuing tend to heighten the level of anxiety, causing drivers to lose patience. Vehicles that are stuck in the queue may decide to pull up over the curb to pass, since there are mi nimal shoulders. Evidence of vehicles riding over the curb was observed in the field. Figure 3 shows views of the intersection from CTDOT’s 2010 Photolog that seems to confirm this problem at the intersection. 6 Improvement Option A: Minimizing Operational Deficiencies Signal timing/optimization was considered as a near ‐term improvement option for the intersection, which currently operates at LOS C. The intersection does not experience severe congestion, but there is a problem caused by left ‐turning SB vehicles holding up through traffic on Route 69. In order to address thi s issue, phasing at the intersection needs to be changed from a sequential phasing to a dual ‐ring structure. There is currently a leading left ‐turn phase available for NB vehicles on Route 69, which can be supplemented by a lagging left‐turn phase for SB vehicles. Lag may offer a better lev el of service and help clear the queue of left ‐turning vehicles that are waiting for a break in oncoming traffic. However, it may also create driving conflicts for the opposing lanes, which should be taken into consideration. The proposed timing plan is included in Appendix C. In addition to adding green time for SB vehicles, the plan also adds an All‐ Red phase of 2.0 seconds following the Sco tt Road phase. This should help to ensure that left ‐turning vehicles from Scott Road are able to clear the intersection before the start of the next phase. There is negligible im pact on the intersection LOS or delay as a result of this change. Improvement Option B: Left‐ Turn Prohibition Given the low‐ volume of SB left ‐turn maneuvers at this intersection (less than 0.5% of all movements), the restrictive geometry and the considerable delay caused by these vehicles, a left ‐turn prohibition for SB traffic on Route 69 may be worth co nsidering. There are five successive streets before the intersection that provide access to Scott Road from Route 69; two of which can be seen in Figure 1. Given the low ‐volume of left ‐turning SB vehicles at this intersection, it is likely that most motori sts are already using these alternate routes to get to Scott Road rather than getting stuck at the intersection. The restriction is likely to receive some opposition from those, who normally make left ‐turns, so it can be limited to peak hours in the morning and evening to Figure 3. Views at the I ntersection of Route 69 & Scott Road: 2010 Looking NB on Route 69 Looking SB on Route 69 Scott Rd Hotchkiss Field 7 reduce the impact on these drivers. There are negligible improvements in the analysis of delay at the intersection with a left ‐turn prohibition. It may be worth considering as a means of maintaining traffic flow on Route 69. Improvement Option C: Minimizing Geometric Deficiencies The long ‐term solution would involve widening the shoulder in the SB direction. The existing geometry severely limits the ability to maintain traffic flow for through vehicles while accommodating SB left ‐turning vehicles on Route 69. There should be sufficient rights ‐of ‐way at the intersection to accommodate widening of the shoulder in the SB direction as a long ‐term solution. A utility pole creates an obstacle that will need to be addressed. The existing conditions do not warrant additional widening to accommodate NB vehicles. The NB protected left ‐turn in the signal timing plan provides adequate opportunity to clear any queues caused by left ‐turning vehicles, ensuring that traffic flow is res tored within the next cycle. In addition, the geometry of the intersection already allows through vehicles to bypass stopped left ‐turning vehicles. From a safety perspective, widening the shoulder in the NB direction might also encourage vehicles to pass on the right without exercising appropriate caution. Addressing the intersection skew may also be considered as a lon g‐term improvement. Scott Road currently comes in at an acute ‐angle, which impacts sight lines and creates a potential safety hazard. Accident records over the past few years do not show a trend in “turning” accidents due to the skew, but accident patterns should be monitored to ensure that it doesn’t create a problem in the future. Realigning Scott Road with the driveway to Hotchkiss Field should also improve traffic flow, since the two minor approach phases could be run simultaneously. The phases are run separately under the existing timing plan to avoid conflicts. Figure 4 shows the proposed realignment within the state and town rights‐of ‐way. Figure 4. Proposed Realignment of Route 69 at Scott Road Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Not to scale. Existing Pavement Proposed Realignment Appendix A: Peak Period Traffic Counts: AM/PM RightThruLeft Trucks Approach Total Right ThruLeftApproac h Total Right ThruLeft Trucks Approac h Total Right ThruLeftApproach Total 7:00 1 65 1 0 67 0 2 34 36 45 62 2 0 109 3 1 0 4 216 7:15 1 68 0 0 69 0 1 39 40 50 50 1 0 101 1 0 1 2 212 7:30 0 93 1 0 94 1 0 40 41 41 71 3 0 115 2 0 0 2 252 7:45 0 88 1 0 89 2 1 52 55 48 100 3 0 151 1 0 1 2 297 8:00 0 87 1 1 88 0 0 37 37 33 68 3 0 104 2 0 0 2 231 8:15 0 75 1 0 76 1 0 43 44 38 95 3 1 136 1 1 1 3 259 8:30 4 79 0 0 83 3 0 48 51 23 79 1 0 103 1 1 2 4 241 8:45 1 76 2 0 79 0 1 22 23 35 81 0 0 116 2 1 0 3 221 RightThruLeftApproach Total Right ThruLeftApproach Total Right ThruLeftTruck s Approach Total Right ThruLeftApproach Total 4:00 2 140 1 143 2 0 50 52 56 114 4 0 174 3 0 2 5 374 4:15 2 119 1 122 2 0 43 45 42 126 0 0 168 1 0 1 2 337 4:30 3 139 3 145 4 0 38 42 84 127 1 1 212 2 0 5 7 406 4:45 3 113 0 116 2 3 52 57 67 115 3 0 185 1 0 3 4 362 5:00 2 121 2 125 1 9 62 72 55 134 8 0 197 3 1 1 5 399 5:15 4 126 0 130 2 4 57 63 65 129 7 1 201 1 2 1 4 398 5:30 2 114 3 119 1 4 49 54 62 132 7 0 201 4 2 0 6 380 5:45 0 105 1 106 2 2 36 40 58 121 4 0 183 3 3 1 7 336 Peak Hour Route 69 at Scott Road, Prospect Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:00 ‐ 9:00 A.M. Time Rte 69 SB Scott Road WB Rte 69 NB Hotchkiss Field EB Int. Total Route 69 at Scott Road, Prospect Thursday, March 29, 2012 Time Rte 69 SB Scott Road WB Rte 69 NB Hotchkiss Field EB Int. Total Appendix B: Synchro Analysis of Existing Operations: AM/PM Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott RdT 3/29/2012 b:30 am foute 69 & Scott fd ob:30 am 3/29/2012 Baoseline Synchro 8 Light feporot Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 2 1 6 1b2 1 4 12 334 160 4 343 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 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 0.9100.99b0.95b Flt Protected 0.9880.9540.9990.999 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1b08 0 0 168b 0 0 1684 0 0 1b54 0 Flt Permitted 0.9880.954 0.993 Satd. Flow (perm)0 1b08 0 0 168b 0 0 1686 0 0 1b44 0 fight Turn on fed YesYesYesYes Satd. Flow (fTOf) 8141 Link Speed (mph) 30303030 Link Distance (ft) 2838b8949919 Travel Time (s) 6.420.0 21.620.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.b5 0.b5 0.b5 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1 8 215 1 5 14 398 190 4 3b3 0 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 0 0 221 0 0 602 0 0 3bb 0 Enter Blocked Interseoction No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left fight Left Left fight Left Left fight Left Left fight Median Width(ft) 0000 Link Offset(ft) 0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 0016 0 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 159 159 159 Number of Detectors 1 31 31 11 1 Detector Template LeftLeftLeftLeft Leading Detector (ft) 20 2220 2220 020 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 00 00 00 0 Detector 1 Position(ft)o 0 00 00 3000 325 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 620 620 020 0 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Call Cl+Ex Call Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 2.00.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft)o 88 Detector 2 Size(ft) 66 Detector 2 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.00.0 Detector 3 Position(ft)o 1616 Detector 3 Size(ft) 66 Detector 3 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott RdT 3/29/2012 b:30 am foute 69 & Scott fd ob:30 am 3/29/2012 Baoseline Synchro 8 Light feporot Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Turn Type Split NASplit NA custom NA custom NA Protected Phases 5 54 41 1 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 Detector Phase 5 5 4 4 1 1 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.03.0 3.015.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.013.0 13.0 6.1 6.122.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.019.0 19.0 b.1 b.141.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 18.3% 23.1% 23.1% 8.6% 8.6% 49.9% 49.9% Maximum Green (s) 11.0 11.0 15.0 15.04.0 4.035.0 35.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 3.04.0 4.0 All-fed Time (s) 1.0 1.01.0 1.00.1 0.12.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.00.00.00.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.04.03.16.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.02.0 2.00.2 0.25.0 5.0 fecall Mode None None None None Max Max C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s)10.0 10.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 1.0 1.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hro) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 14.9 54.424.9 Actuated g/C fatio 0.110.180.660.30 v/c fatio 0.060.b20.530.b1 Control Delay 23.344.410.032.6 Queue Delay 0.00.00.00.0 Total Delay 23.344.410.032.6 LOS CD BC Approach Delay 23.344.410.032.6 Approach LOS CD BC Intersection Summaryo Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 82.1 Actuated Cycle Lengtho: 82.1 Offset: 0 (0%), feferenceod to phase 2:NBSB, Starot of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Cooordinated Maximum v/c fatio: 0.b2 Intersection Signal Deolay: 23.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity oUtilization 58.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) o15 Splits and Phases: o 3: foute 69 & Hotchokiss Field/Scott fd Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott RdT 3/29/2012 b:30 pm foute 69 & Scott fd ob:30 pm 3/29/2012 Baoseline Synchro 8 Light feporto Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 3 7 209 16 9 19 505 271 5 b99 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 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 0.9520.9950.95b0.997 Flt Protected 0.9760.9570.9990.999 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1765 0 0 1689 0 0 1679 0 0 17b9 0 Flt Permitted 0.9760.9570.9870.991 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1765 0 0 1689 0 0 1659 0 0 1735 0 fight Turn on fed YesYesYesYes Satd. Flow (fTOf) 102b6 2 Link Speed (mph) 30303030 Link Distance (ft) 2838789b9919 Travel Time (s) 6.b20.0 21.620.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.9b 0.9b 0.9b 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 1b b 10 258 20 11 20 537 288 6 561 13 Shared Lane Traffic (%o) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 0 0 289 0 0 8b5 0 0 580 0 Enter Blocked Interseoction No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left fight Left Left fight Left Left fight Left Left fight Median Width(ft) 0000 Link Offset(ft) 0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 0016 0 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 159 159 159 Number of Detectors 1 31 31 11 1 Detector Template LeftLeftLeftLeft Leading Detector (ft) 20 2220 2220 020 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 00 00 00 0 Detector 1 Position(ft)o 0 00 00 3000 325 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 620 620 020 0 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Call Cl+Ex Call Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 2.00.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft)o 88 Detector 2 Size(ft) 66 Detector 2 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.00.0 Detector 3 Position(ft)o 1616 Detector 3 Size(ft) 66 Detector 3 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsBaseline 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott RdT 3/29/2012 b:30 pm foute 69 & Scott fd ob:30 pm 3/29/2012 Baoseline Synchro 8 Light feporto Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Turn Type Split NASplit NA custom NA custom NA Protected Phases 5 5b b1 1 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 Detector Phase 5 5 b b 1 1 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.03.0 3.015.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.013.0 13.0 6.1 6.121.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.019.0 19.0 7.1 7.1b1.0 b1.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 18.3% 23.1% 23.1% 8.6% 8.6% b9.9% b9.9% Maximum Green (s) 11.0 11.0 15.0 15.0b.0 b.035.0 35.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 3.0b.0 b.0 All-fed Time (s) 1.0 1.01.0 1.00.1 0.12.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.00.00.00.0 Total Lost Time (s) b.0b.03.16.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes YesYes YesYes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.00.2 0.25.0 5.0 fecall Mode None None None None Max MaxMin Min Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 1.0 1.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hor) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 9.b 1b.9 3b.226.9 Actuated g/C fatio 0.150.230.5b0.b2 v/c fatio 0.100.730.930.79 Control Delay 2b.6b0.232.726.2 Queue Delay 0.00.00.00.0 Total Delay 2b.6b0.232.726.2 LOS CDCC Approach Delay 2b.6b0.232.726.2 Approach LOS CDCC Intersection Summaryo Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 82.1 Actuated Cycle Lengtho: 63.9 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Semi Acto-Uncoord Maximum v/c fatio: 0.93o Intersection Signal oDelay: 31.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacityo Utilization 81.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) o15 Splits and Phases: o 3: foute 69 & Hotcohkiss Field/Scott fd Appendix C: Results of Signal Optimization Analyses: AM/PM Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott Rd 11/1/2012 7:b0 am Rfute 69 & Scftt Rd u7:b0 am 11/1/2012 Aluternative Phasing/Tiuming Synchrf 8 Light Repfrtu Page 1 Lane Grfup EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Cfnfiguratifns Vflume (vph) 2 1 6 172 1 4 12 bb4 160 4 b4b 0 Ideal Flfw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 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 0.9100.9970.957 Flt Prftected 0.9880.9540.9990.999 Satd. Flfw (prft) 0 1708 0 0 1687 0 0 1684 0 0 1754 0 Flt Permitted 0.9880.9540.9920.994 Satd. Flfw (perm) 0 1708 0 0 1687 0 0 1672 0 0 1745 0 Right Turn fn Red YesYes NfYes Satd. Flfw (RTOR) 81 Link Speed (mph) b0b0b0b0 Link Distance (ft) 28b878949919 Travel Time (s) 6.420.0 21.620.9 Peak Hfur Factfr 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Adj. Flfw (vph) b 1 8 212 1 5 1b b55 170 4 b85 0 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Grfup Flfw (vph) 0 12 0 0 218 0 0 5b8 0 0 b89 0 Enter Blfcked Intersecutifn Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Nf Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0000 Link Offset(ft) 0000 Crfsswalk Width(ft) 0016 0 Twf way Left Turn Lane Headway Factfr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 159 159 159 Number ff Detectfrs 1 b1 b1 11 1 Detectfr Template LeftLeftLeftLeft Leading Detectfr (ft) 20 2220 2220 020 0 Trailing Detectfr (ft) 0 00 00 00 0 Detectfr 1 Pfsitifn(ftu) 0 00 00 b000 b25 Detectfr 1 Size(ft) 20 620 620 020 0 Detectfr 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Call Cl+Ex Call Detectfr 1 Channel Detectfr 1 Extend (s) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detectfr 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detectfr 1 Delay (s) 0.0 2.00.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detectfr 2 Pfsitifn(ftu) 88 Detectfr 2 Size(ft) 66 Detectfr 2 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detectfr 2 Channel Detectfr 2 Extend (s) 0.00.0 Detectfr b Pfsitifn(ft)u 1616 Detectfr b Size(ft) 66 Detectfr b Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detectfr b Channel Detectfr b Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott Rd 11/1/2012 7:b0 am Rfute 69 & Scftt Rd u7:b0 am 11/1/2012 Aluternative Phasing/Tiuming Synchrf 8 Light Repfrtu Page 2 Lane Grfup EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Turn Type Split NASplit NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prftected Phases 4 48 85 21 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detectfr Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0b.0 15.0b.0 15.9 Minimum Split (s) 16.0 16.015.0 15.0 6.1 22.09.0 22.0 Tftal Split (s) 18.0 18.02b.0 2b.0 6.1 b9.09.0 41.9 Tftal Split (%) 20.2% 20.2% 25.8% 25.8% 6.9% 4b.8% 10.1% 47.1% Maximum Green (s) 1b.0 1b.0 18.0 18.0b.0 b4.9b.0 b5.9 Yellfw Time (s) b.0 b.0b.0 b.0b.0 4.04.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.02.0 2.00.1 0.12.0 2.0 Lfst Time Adjust (s) 0.00.00.00.0 Tftal Lfst Time (s) 5.05.04.16.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extensifn (s) 2.0 2.02.0 2.0b.0 5.0b.0 5.0 Recall Mfde Nfne Nfne Nfne Nfne Max Min Nfne Min Walk Time (s)10.0 10.0 Flash Dfnt Walk (s) 1.0 1.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hru) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 8.5 12.1 28.720.2 Actuated g/C Ratif 0.160.2b0.550.b9 v/c Ratif 0.040.560.580.58 Cfntrfl Delay 19.225.812.517.7 Queue Delay 0.00.00.00.0 Tftal Delay 19.225.812.517.7 LOS BC BB Apprfach Delay 19.225.812.517.7 Apprfach LOS BC BB Intersectifn Summary Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 89 Actuated Cycle Length:u 52.1 Natural Cycle: 70 Cfntrfl Type: Semi Act-Uuncffrd Maximum v/c Ratif: 0.58 Intersectifn Signal uDelay: 16.8 Intersectifn LOS: B Intersectifn Capacity Utuilizatifn 58.9% ICU Level ff Service B Analysis Perifd (min) u15 Splits and Phases: u b: Rfute 69 & Hftcuhkiss Field/Scftt Rdu Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott Rd 6/6/2012 4b30 pm foute 69 & Scott fd o4b30 pm 6/6/2012 Altoernative Phasing/Timoing Synchro 8 Light feport Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 3 7 209 16 9 19 505 271 5 499 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 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 0.9520.9950.9540.997 Flt Protected 0.9760.9570.9990.999 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1765 0 0 1689 0 0 1679 0 0 1749 0 Flt Permitted 0.9760.9570.9850.991 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1765 0 0 1689 0 0 1656 0 0 1735 0 fight Turn on fed YesYes NoYes Satd. Flow (fTOf) 102 2 Link Speed (mph) 30303030 Link Distance (ft) 283878949919 Travel Time (s) 6.420.0 21.620.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 14 4 10 258 20 11 20 537 288 6 561 13 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 0 0 289 0 0 845 0 0 580 0 Enter Blocked Intersecotion No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left fight Left Left fight Left Left fight Left Left fight Median Width(ft) 0000 Link Offset(ft) 0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 0016 0 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 159 159 159 Number of Detectors 1 31 31 11 1 Detector Template LeftLeftLeftLeft Leading Detector (ft) 20 2220 2220 020 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 00 00 00 0 Detector 1 Position(fto) 0 00 00 3000 325 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 620 620 020 0 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Call Cl+Ex Call Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 2.00.0 2.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fto) 88 Detector 2 Size(ft) 66 Detector 2 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.00.0 Detector 3 Position(ft)o 1616 Detector 3 Size(ft) 66 Detector 3 Type Cl+ExCl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Lanes, bolufes, TifinTgsAlternative PhasingT/Tifing 3: Route 69 & HotchTkiss Field/Scott Rd 6/6/2012 4b30 pm foute 69 & Scott fd o4b30 pm 6/6/2012 Altoernative Phasing/Timoing Synchro 8 Light feport Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBf WBL WBT WBf NBL NBT NBf SBL SBT SBf Turn Type Split NASplit NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 48 85 21 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.03.0 15.03.0 15.9 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.015.0 15.0 6.1 22.09.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 18.0 18.023.0 23.0 6.1 39.09.0 41.9 Total Split (%) 20.2% 20.2% 25.8% 25.8% 6.9% 43.8% 10.1% 47.1% Maximum Green (s) 14.0 14.0 19.0 19.03.0 34.93.0 35.9 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 4.04.0 4.0 All-fed Time (s) 1.0 1.01.0 1.00.1 0.12.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.00.00.00.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.04.04.16.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.02.0 2.03.0 5.03.0 5.0 fecall Mode None None None None Max Min None Min Walk Time (s)10.0 10.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 1.0 1.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hor) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 8.3 15.5 39.531.2 Actuated g/C fatio 0.120.230.590.46 v/c fatio 0.120.740.870.72 Control Delay 26.538.826.722.8 Queue Delay 0.00.00.00.0 Total Delay 26.538.826.722.8 LOS CDCC Approach Delay 26.538.826.722.8 Approach LOS CDCC Intersection Summaryo Area TypebOther Cycle Lengthb 89 Actuated Cycle Lengthob 67.3 Natural Cycleb 100 Control Typeb Semi Act-oUncoord Maximum v/c fatiob 0.87 Intersection Signal oDelayb 27.4 Intersection LOSb C Intersection Capacity oUtilization 82.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (mino) 15 Splits and Phasesb o 3b foute 69 & Hotcohkiss Field/Scott fd