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