LEMON FLATS SECOND ACCESS

Transcription

1 LEMON FLATS SECOND ACCESS RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SEPTEMBER 2007

2 APPENDIX A Synchro Analysis Worksheets

3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Background 3: Anka Street & Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm custom custom Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service B B B C B C B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 1

4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Background 19: Davis St & Glacier Hwy Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBL NBR SEL SER Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 6 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SE 1 SE 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 2

5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Background 4: Commercial Drive & Anka Street Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 680 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 3

6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Background 3: Glacier Hwy & Anka Street Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm custom custom Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service B B B C B C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 4

7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Background 19: Davis Ave & Glacier Hwy Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBL NBR SEL SER Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 6 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SE 1 SE 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS E B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 5

8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Background 4: Commercial Drive & Anka Street Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 680 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS E A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 6

9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Glacier Hwy & Anka St Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c c v/s Ratio Perm c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service B A A C C C C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 7

10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Glacier Hwy & Concrete Way Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1033 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol 812 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1004 vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) 5.5 tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SW 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS B D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 8

11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Davis St & Glacier Hwy Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR SEL SET NWT NWR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Yield Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 605 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 SE 1 SE 2 NW 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Err Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Control Delay (s) Err Lane LOS F F F B A Approach Delay (s) Err Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 9

12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Glacier Hwy & Anka St Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service B C B C B B B C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 10

13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Short St & Glacier Hwy Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c c0.47 c v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service C C C C A C B B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 11

14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Glacier Hwy & Anka St Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c c v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service B B B C B B C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 12

15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Borrow Street Extension & Glacier Hwy Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS C C D B A B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 13

16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Glacier Hwy & Anka St Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c v/s Ratio Perm c c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service D A B D C C D C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C D C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 14

17 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Commercial Drive & Anka St Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 3 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 680 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 15

18 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Anka St & Lemon Creek Bridge Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1300 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 16

19 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Davis St & Glacier Hwy Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 6 Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 17

20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Davis St & Lemon Creek Bridge Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary Delay 9.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 18

21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Glacier HIghway & Anka Street Lemon Flats Second Access Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Growth Factor (vph) 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% 125% Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm custom custom Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/c Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm c v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d Delay (s) Level of Service B B B C B C B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 19

22 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Commercial Drive & Anka Street Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 680 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 8.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 20

23 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Alternative : Davis Ave & Glacier HIghway Lemon Flats Second Access Movement WBL WBR NBL NBR SEL SER Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 6 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SE 1 SE 2 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 DOWL, LLC Synchro 7 - Report SKN/SLM Page 1 Appendix A - Page 21

24 APPENDIX B Scoping Summary Report

25 SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT LEMON FLATS SECOND ACCESS Prepared for: City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska Prepared by: DOWL Engineers 4041 B Street Anchorage, Alaska (907) W.O. D59662 July 2007 B - 1

26 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION General Project Team Scoping Method Mailing List for Potentially Affected Interests Project Flyer Advertisements Project Website Project Address Project Comment Form PUBLIC SCOPING Public Scoping Meeting Public Works and Facilities Commission Planning Commission Presentation Wetland Review Board Documentation of Public Comments AGENCY SCOPING Agency Scoping Meeting SUMMARY...15 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map and Options...2 Figure 2: Mailing List Distribution Area...5 APPENDICES Appendix A...Scoping Method Appendix B...Public Scoping Presentations Appendix C...Written Public Comments Appendix D...Agency Scoping Appendix E...Agency Written Comments B - 2 Page i

27 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 LIST OF ACRONYMS ACWA...American Clean Water Association AEL&P... Alaska Electric Light and Power CBJ... City and Borough of Juneau DEC...State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DOT&PF...State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DOWL... DOWL Engineers FWS...Fish and Wildlife Service JFD... Juneau Fire Department JPD...Juneau Police Department JWP... Juneau Watershed Partnership LFCD...Lemon Flats Commercial District USCG...United States Coast Guard B - 3 Page ii

28 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The Lemon Flats Commercial District (LFCD) is one of the fastest developing areas in Juneau. The single access into the LFCD is the Anka Street/Glacier Highway intersection. This existing access is congested during peak periods and combines heavy commercial traffic with pedestrian, residential, and light commercial traffic that also access this area. The objective of the Lemon Flats Second Access project is to complete the planning and design efforts for a second access into the LFCD that will resolve the safety and congestion concerns associated with the existing access (Figure 1). Improvements to this intersection have recently been constructed to resolve traffic impacts associated with ongoing development in LFCD. Additional development is anticipated and the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has requested the LFCD be studied to develop a plan for the entire area rather than to piecemeal the traffic mitigation on a project-by-project basis. This study is the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) s response to that request. The project is planned to occur in three phases. Phase I is a planning and scoping process that will identify access alternatives and will culminate in a Reconnaissance Report that evaluates the identified alternatives. If funding is identified, Phase II would include a preliminary design and environmental documentation. Phase III would be final design. B - 4 Page 1

29 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Figure 1: Project Location Map and Options B - 5 Page 2

30 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D Project Team Phase I Project Personnel The project team for this project is listed below. CBJ Rorie Watts, P.E., Deputy Engineering Director Michele Elfers, Project Manager Toner-Nordling and Associates Pete Hildre, P.E., Project/Contract Manager DOWL Engineers (DOWL) Steven K Noble, P.E., Project Engineer Stephanie Mormilo, E.I.T. Jennifer Payne, Public Involvement Lead 1.3 Scoping Method The following scoping methods were included in the Public Involvement Plan and used to inform the public and local, state, and federal resource agencies about the project, its objectives, and the environmental design process: Public Scoping Meeting Agency Scoping Meeting CBJ Public Works and Facilities Commission Meeting CBJ Planning Commission Meeting B - 6 Page 3

31 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 CBJ Wetland Review Board Meeting Project Information on the CBJ Website Project Address Advertisements Flyers PowerPoint Presentations and Informational Maps Mailing List for Potentially Affected Interests A mailing list has been developed for this project. The mailing list includes all property owners and residents within the project study area (Figure 2). Additionally, persons who, through the course of advertisements and scoping, expressed an interest in this project were also added to the list. Agencies/officials of local, state, and federal resource agencies, area utility representatives, and officials who have expressed an interest in the project are also included in the mailing distribution list. In addition to the mailing lists, an distribution list was created (Appendix A) Project Flyer A project flyer (Appendix A) was created by CBJ to announce the public meetings and sent to the addressees on the project mailing lists. The flyers contained graphics and text explaining the project status, informing the public of meetings, and asking for public feedback on the proposed solutions Advertisements Advertisements for the scoping meeting ran in the Juneau Empire on May 11 and May 21, 2007 (Appendix A). B - 7 Page 4

32 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D Project Website A project-specific link to CBJ s website was developed and will be maintained for the duration of the project. The link is located at The website provides a source for current project information, including meeting announcements, project details, maps, and project documents. A copy of the project website is attached in Appendix A Project Address A project-specific contact address of secondaccess@dowl.com was established to collect public comments and questions. Figure 2: Mailing List Distribution Area B - 8 Page 5

33 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D Project Comment Form A project comment form (Appendix A) was developed and distributed at the public scoping meeting to solicit public comments. The form includes information about the project and a place to add comments. 2.0 PUBLIC SCOPING 2.1 Public Scoping Meeting A Public Scoping meeting was held on May 21, 2007, at Dzantiki Heeni School in Juneau. Community members signed in and met with the project staff for one-on-one discussions in an open-house format. After the open house, Steve Noble (DOWL) gave a PowerPoint presentation about the project. At the conclusion of the presentation, the floor was opened for public questions and concerns. A copy of the presentation, meeting minutes, and sign-in sheet are included in Appendix B. 2.2 Public Works and Facilities Commission A CBJ Public Works and Facilities Commission meeting was held on Monday, May 21, Steve Noble (DOWL) gave a PowerPoint Presentation about the project and took comments from the Commission. A copy of the presentation and meeting minutes are included in Appendix B. 2.3 Planning Commission Presentation A CBJ Planning Commission meeting was held on Tuesday, May 22, Steve Noble (DOWL) gave a PowerPoint presentation about the project and took comments from the Commission. A copy of the presentation and meeting minutes are included in Appendix B. 2.4 Wetland Review Board A CBJ Wetland Review Board meeting was held on Thursday, June 7, Michele Elfers (CBJ) gave a PowerPoint presentation about the project and took comments from the Board. A copy of the presentation and meeting minutes are included in Appendix B. B - 9 Page 6

34 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Meeting summary: The board voted to support Options 1, 2, and 5 over Options 3, 3a, 4a, and 4b because these alternatives meet the purpose and need without impacting wetlands and Vanderbilt Creek. 2.5 Documentation of Public Comments All written comments received as of June 18, 2007 (the conclusion of the scoping period), are listed in Appendix C. A paraphrased list of public comments is listed below, and comments in their entirety are included in Appendix C. General Project Comments - CBJ has already made up its mind that it wants to go through the watershed. - CBJ should not take property through eminent domain. - The route should meet CBJ arterial road standards. - The Comprehensive Plan, Juneau Wetland Management Plan, and the Parks and Recreation Plan should be considered. - Seeking a second access is unneeded as traffic counts are well within acceptable traffic load limits. - There should not be more traffic lights on Glacier Highway. - Split traffic between Commercial Boulevard and Anka Street with no more lights. Alignment Comments - Option 1: Anka Street Rehab + This should not be the preferred route, even though it may be the cheapest and least destructive. B - 10 Page 7

35 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D This is the least expensive route. + This is the least environmentally damaging option. + This route should be preferred because when traffic was directed away from this route in the past, an area business was hurt. - Option 2: Concrete Way + This is a good option as it requires less money and work by the CBJ. + This seems to have the least negative impacts to businesses. + This would create a second access route. + This is a less environmentally damaging option. + This option would need a street light and to be widened. - Option 3: New Bench Road + This would be the longest, most expensive, and environmentally damaging option. + This would negatively affect the Lemon Creek Trail, Quigley Homestead, and wildlife corridor. + This would require removing a big chunk of Blackerby Ridge. + Would be an abuse of CBJ authority. + If CBJ were interested in more than a haul route, they would take this option off the table. + A road here will negatively affect the watershed and subsequently the salmon in Vanderbilt Creek. B - 11 Page 8

36 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D This option would go through four active slide areas. + Vanderbilt Creek is already an impaired water body. + A road would create more sedimentation, pollution, and potential water flow problems that would further degrade Vanderbilt Creek as a salmon rearing stream. + This would negatively affect businesses by routing potential customers away from businesses. + This route negatively affects wetlands. + There needs to be more monitoring of Vanderbilt Creek in terms of water quality and the presence of fish. + This would create a safety problem for residents if trucks were to travel in the area. + The Lemon Creek Trail is a Forest Service Trail that has been in existence in this location since Options 3 or 3A would obliterate the entire length of the lower Lemon Creek Trail that runs parallel to Vanderbilt Creek. + This is the best route because there is not an intersection on a curve and is straight along Glacier Highway that makes for safe turning movements. + This route is a good long-term option, is the most truly independent route for future development, and is on firm ground. + The best route is from Short Street up to Charles Way, as it will minimize traffic impacts on area businesses and will not affect residential properties directly. + This route should connect to the northern Lemon Flats. B - 12 Page 9

37 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D There should be an established truck route from Home Depot to Glacier Highway and Mapco. - Option 4: Borrow Street Extension + This will go through a residential property. - Option 5: Davis/Anka Bridge + This might exacerbate traffic problems on Anka Street. + This option drives commercial traffic to a residential area. + Davis Avenue is already too well used with no signal at the Glacier Highway intersection. + This would give felons in the halfway house on Anka Street easy access to the residential area. + This area is already too dangerous for bicycles. + This option would provide a pedestrian route. - Option 6: Northern Lemon Creek Bridge + This option is for the materials site, not a second access. + We would like to see this option connected to the bench road. 3.0 AGENCY SCOPING 3.1 Agency Scoping Meeting The agency scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, in Juneau, Alaska. An invitation that provided background information on the project was sent to the agencies inviting them to comment on the project and participate in the scoping meeting. The letter, B - 13 Page 10

38 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 invitation list, and a copy of the presentation, meeting minutes, and attendance list are included in Appendix D. Those in attendance were: Carolyn Morehouse, DOT&PF Fred Thorstenson, DOT&PF Eric Eriksen, Alaska Electric Light and Power (AEL&P) Rich Etheridge, CBJ Neil Barten, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Dennis Townsend, Alaska Communication Systems Mike Scott, CBJ, Traffic Jerry Nankervis, Juneau Police Department (JPD) Davis Hawes, DOT&PF Heather Marlow, CBJ, Planning Michele Elfers, CBJ Steve Noble, DOWL Stephanie Mormilo, DOWL Jennifer Payne, DOWL Comments at the meeting included: Look at taking out the Anka Street signal and placing one at Concrete Way. There is an active falconer near the trail site right under Option 3a. B - 14 Page 11

39 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Home Depot is already building a small section of Option 3. It would be attractive to build it for those accessing the business. Option 3 would probably drive people from the Sunny Point and Fred Meyer Glacier Highway access point onto the Western Auto access point. Options 3 and 3a are more attractive to the Juneau Fire Department (JFD) because they would give access to residential areas. Currently JFD has to use four-by-four vehicles to access these areas. The Charles and Commercial Boulevard would give JFD a second entrance into the area which would be helpful for response times if the other road is blocked. The start of a curve is a bad place for access. Option 4 has the most wetland impact. Option 5 would bring traffic to a residential area. Option 5 may add more traffic to Anka Street. A pedestrian bridge at Option 5 may make sense. The Comprehensive Plan shows a road going behind Switzer Creek. CBJ is going to develop those lands someday and needs access. The truck route this project is proposing does not match with the Comprehensive Plan for the Switzer Creek access route. Capital Transit should be included in the planning discussion. The team should wait until Home Depot opens to see if the projected traffic numbers come true before there is a plan to build something. Has the project team considered eliminating the intersection at Anka Street and servicing it as a frontage road? B - 15 Page 12

40 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Agency Written Comments: Various agencies provided written comments to the project team (Appendix E). The following is a summary of the comments: Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) AEL&P is currently coordinating with the CBJ about providing service to a new impound yard beyond the Lemon Creek Correctional Center. AEL&P is in the process of extending its electrical system across the temporary bridge installation that crosses Lemon Creek. A permanent crossing at Option 6 (northern crossing of Lemon Creek) will allow AEL&P to best serve both the residential side and industrial side of Lemon Creek. AEL&P also supports Option 6 (northern crossing of Lemon Creek) being connected to Option 3 (bench road). State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Lemon Creek has a total maximum daily load for sediment and turbidity. As a result, best management practices from construction site activities would need to be implemented to ensure that the project does not contribute to existing sediment and turbidity levels. Vanderbilt Creek is also listed as an impaired water body for sediment, turbidity, and residues. The Juneau Watershed Partnership (JWP) is currently working with an American Clean Water Association (ACWA) grant to develop monitoring strategies for both Lemon and Vanderbilt Creeks, and it is likely that ACWA funding will be available for the sampling of Vanderbilt Creek in Fiscal Year Juneau Police Department (JPD) The best route is from the Short Street intersection with Glacier Highway up along Option 3 (bench) and connecting to Option 3a onto Charles Way. B - 16 Page 13

41 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D There is a straightaway along Glacier Highway that makes for safe turning, whereas the Concrete Way option is more dangerous because it is on a curve and close to Davis Avenue. 2. This route will minimize traffic impacts on existing businesses. 3. This route will not directly affect any residential properties. JPD does not think Option 5 (Davis Avenue) is a good option because there are many people that live in this area and there is already a lot of traffic. JPD does not like the Option 4a (Borrow Street) because there are private property owners who will be affected. CBJ Municipal Sewer Utilities There are no existing sewer lines in the area of Options 3, 3a, or 4a. Currently, there are some properties in this area that currently have no sewer service. Juneau Watershed Partnership (JWP) The JWP favors Option 2 as it has the least impact to Lemon and Vanderbilt Creeks. It recommends further evaluation of the purpose and need for a bench road and, if it is justified, the Partnership suggests Option 3a be considered for further review. If any option other than 1 or 2 is to be considered, more information on fish habitat and wetlands should be gathered and studied to allow maximum protection of these assets. Juneau Fire Department (JFD) The JFD fully supports the project and favors Options 3 to 3a. United States Coast Guard (USCG) The USCG expressed concerns about the project negatively affecting their property at 4845 Glacier Highway. B - 17 Page 14

42 Scoping Summary Report Lemon Flats Second Access Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) The FWS supports the further evaluation of Options 1 and 2. The FWS asserted that Options 3 and 4 will have impacts on Vanderbilt Creek, its tributaries, and wetlands to some degree; with Option 4b having the least impact and Options 3, 3a, and 4a having higher impacts. The FWS would like the project team to further evaluate: A total survey of the area. Work with state and federal biologists to determine upstream extent of fish habitat in the watershed. Evaluate how the perennial backslope drainage from the Home Depot site and the existing tributary streams will be accommodated by any potential road crossing. Create an overlay map with associated impact analysis matrix. 4.0 SUMMARY The above public and agency comments provide valuable insight into the issues to be resolved during the project and investigated for the Reconnaissance Report. Comments received after the end of the scoping period June 18, 2007 will also be reviewed by the team and included in the Reconnaissance Report. B - 18 Page 15

43 APPENDIX C Public Involvement Plan

44 LEMON FLATS SECOND ACCESS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN-PHASE I Overview The Lemon Flats Commercial Districts (LFCD) is one of the fastest developing areas in Juneau, Alaska. The single access into the LFCD is the Anka Street/Glacier Highway intersection. This existing access will not meet the projected traffic demand over the next 20 years and does not enable heavier commercial traffic to be separated from the pedestrian and light commercial traffic that also access this area. Project objective: complete the planning and design efforts for a second access into the LFCD that will resolve the safety and congestion concerns associated with the existing access. The objective is planned to occur in three phases. Phase I is a planning and scoping period that will identify access alternatives and will culminate in a Reconnaissance Report that evaluates the identified alternatives. After funding is identified, Phase II will be a preliminary design and environmental phase. The third phase is final design. Purpose of the Public Involvement Plan This public involvement and scoping plan provides a framework for soliciting public and resource agency input on the Lemon Flats Second Access project. The project team members are committed to keeping the public informed, having no lapses in coordination, maintaining a brisk project pace, being ready to respond to pertinent comments and questions in a timely manner, and using state-of-the-art tools and approaches. This public involvement plan will be continually updated and revised as needed during the project. Numerous groups and individuals may be interested in how the project will be designed and constructed. The objective of the public involvement program is to work directly with the interested public through Phase I (Reconnaissance Report) so that their issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered. C - 1 Page 1

45 Public Participation Goals Guidelines for a successful public involvement process include the following: The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) and DOWL Engineers (DOWL) will keep the public informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns, and provide feedback on how public input has influenced project decisions. Various means will be used to keep the public informed. Attention will be paid to the best ways to reach and listen to all groups. Information will be shared openly and directly to help people become familiar with the issues and the process. The project team and participants will take time to try to understand different points of view and to resolve issues that arise along the way. Milestones in the process will be clearly defined and acknowledged. Efforts will be made up front to clarify the goals and expectations for public input into the project. The roles of the technical team and the public will be clearly explained. Aspects of the project that are technical in nature will be clearly identified as such. The public will be encouraged to provide input and collaborate with the team on appropriate design issues. Potentially Affected Interests The public involvement process for the project will include the following groups. General Public The general public mailing list includes all property owners and residents within the project study area (Figure 1). During the project, members of the public living outside the area that comment on the project or attend public meetings will be added to the mailing list. Additionally, the following agencies/representatives will be included in the general project mailing list: C - 2 Page 2

46 Federal Government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) State of Alaska State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR): Office of Habitat Management and Permitting Office of Project Management and Permitting Office of History and Archaeology Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Alaska Senator Kim Elton Alaska Representative Beth Kerttula Alaska Representative Andrea Doll City and Borough of Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho Assembly Member Robert Bob Doll Assembly Member Johan Dybdahl Assembly Member Jeff Bush Assembly Member Merrill Sanford Assembly Member David G. Stone Assembly Member Randy Wanamaker Assembly Member Jonathan Anderson Assembly Member Sara Chambers C - 3 Page 3

47 Other Interested Parties Capital Transit Local Utility Companies AEL&P (electric) ACS (phone) GCI (phone and cable) CBJ Public Works (water) CBJ Wastewater Utilities (sewer) CBJ Street Department Comprehensive Mailing List An expanded mailing list will be developed that incorporates the above potentially affected interests and additional listings of groups or individuals that have been asked to be included in all project mailings. Phase I Project Personnel Key personnel from the project team that will be involved in the public and agency involvement portion of the project include: City and Borough of Juneau Rorie Watts, P.E., Deputy Engineering Director Michele Elfers, Project Manager Toner-Nordling and Associates Pete Hildre, P.E., Project/Contract Manager DOWL s Project Team Steve Noble, P.E., PTOE - Phase 1 Task Leader Jennifer Payne - Public Involvement Lead C - 4 Page 4

48 Public Involvement Opportunities Numerous methods of reaching the public for input and involvement will be employed on this project. Public Scoping Meetings A public Scoping meeting will be on May 21, 2007, at Dzantiki Heeni School in Juneau, 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. The public meeting will be advertised twice in the Juneau Empire; once on May 7, 2007, and again on May 21, A flyer announcing the meeting will be sent to the project mailing list. Public Works and Facilities Commission Monday, May 21, 2007 Noon 1 p.m. PW&FC Public Works and Facilities Committee: Bob Doll, Chair; Merrill Sanford, Deputy Mayor; Jonathan Anderson, Assembly Member; David Stone, Assembly Member. Planning Commission Presentation Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. Planning Commission: Dan Bruce, Chair; Maria Gladziszewski, Clerk; Marshal Kendziorek, Vice Chair; Dan Miller, Frank Rue, Michael Satre, Linda Snow, Nancy Waterman, Vice Clerk, Dennis Watson. Agency Meeting Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Contact Address A project-specific contact address of secondaccess@dowl.com has been established to collect public comments and questions. It will be checked each business day. Project Website A project-specific link to CBJ s website will be developed and maintained for the duration of the project. The link will be located at C - 5 Page 5

49 The website will provide a source for current project information including meeting announcements, project details, maps, and project documents. Project Flyers A project flyer will be created by CBJ to announce the public meetings and sent to the established mailing list. The flyers will contain graphics and text explaining the project status, informing the public of meetings, and asking for public feedback on the proposed solutions. C - 6 Page 6

50 APPENDIX D Alternative Plan and Profiles

51 Appendix D -1

52 Appendix D -2

53 Appendix D -3

54 Appendix D -4

55 Appendix D -5

56 Appendix D -6

57 Appendix D -7

58 Appendix D -8

59 Appendix D -9

60 Appendix D -10

61 Appendix D -11

62 Appendix D -12

63 APPENDIX E Lemon Flats Commercial District Extract from Comprehensive Plan

64 Appendix E -1

65 APPENDIX F Level of Service Definitions

66 Lemon Flats Second Access Reconnaissance Study Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes the operating conditions within an intersection or roadway section, and the perception of those conditions by the facility s users. The factors used to measure the level of service provided by any given facility, might include any or all of the following: User comfort Convenience Travel time Maneuverability Interruptions in traffic Speed Cost Number of stops Fuel Consumption Every type of facility (intersections, freeway segment, arterial, or pedestrian) has different operating parameters that are used to determine its level of service. For intersections, the primary operating parameter is average control delay per vehicle defined in units of seconds per vehicle. There are six levels of service defined for each facility type. Each level has a letter identification from A to F with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The delay experienced by motorists in a signalized intersection is effected by a number of factors related to geometrics, traffic, control, and incidents. The total delay is defined as the difference between the actual travel time and travel time that would result from ideal conditions. An ideal signalized intersection has 12-foot (3.6 meter) lane widths, level grade, no curb parking, only passenger cars in the traffic stream, no turning movements, green signal available all the time, and is located outside the central business district. For signalized intersections, only the portion of total delay associated with control is measured. This delay is referred to as control delay and includes the following: initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 1 summarizes the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual s description of the six LOSs for a signalized intersection. Appendix F - Page 1

67 Lemon Flats Second Access Reconnaissance Study Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Average Delay per Vehicle A B C D E F Very low control delay, 10 or less seconds per vehicle; progression is very favorable; most vehicles arrive during the green cycle; most vehicles do not stop. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle; progression is good and/or cycle lengths are short. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Control delay greater than 20 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle; progression is fair and/or cycle lengths are longer. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many vehicles still pass through without stopping. Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle; progression is unfavorable, cycle lengths are long, or has a high flow rate to capacity ratio. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping diminishes. Individual cycle failures are obvious. Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle; progression is poor, cycle lengths are long, and has a high flow rate to capacity ratio. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Control delay greater than 80 seconds per vehicle; progression is very poor, cycle lengths are long. Many individual cycle failures. Arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level is considered unacceptable to most drivers. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The two types of unsignalized intersections include two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections. The LOS for a TWSC intersection is defined by control delay for each minor approach and major street left-turn movement rather than the overall intersection. The LOS for an AWSC intersection is defined by control delay for the intersection as a while. The delay range for unsignalized intersections are different from those for signalized intersections primarily due to driver expectation. The expectation is that signalized intersections are designed to carry higher volumes of traffic and therefore higher levels of delay are acceptable. Table 2 summarizes the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual s description of the six LOSs for an unsignalized intersection. Appendix F - Page 2

68 Lemon Flats Second Access Reconnaissance Study Juneau, Alaska W.O. D59662 Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Average Delay per Vehicle A Very low control delay, 10 or less seconds per vehicle. All drivers find freedom of operation. Very rarely more than one vehicle in queue. B Control delay great than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle. Some drivers begin to consider the delay troublesome. Seldom is there more than one vehicle in queue. C D E F Control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle. Most drivers feel restricted, but tolerably so. Often there is more than one vehicle in queue. Control delay is greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Drivers feel restricted. Most often, there is more than one vehicle in queue. Control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds per vehicle. Drivers find delays approaching intolerable levels. There is frequently more than one vehicle is queue. This level denotes a state in which the demand is close or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement. Control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle. Very constrained flow. Represents an intersection failure situation that is caused by geometry and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. SUMMARY The average control delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections is summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Summary of Average Control Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A B > 10 and 15 > 10 and 20 C > 15 and 25 > 20 and 35 D > 25 and 35 > 35 and 55 E > 35 and 50 > 55 and 80 F > 50 > 80 Appendix F - Page 3

69