Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis for Port Marigny Site Mandeville, LA

Transcription

1 Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis for Port Marigny Site Mandeville, LA (St. Tammany Parish Mandeville, LA) Prepared For The Pittman Companies Michael N Pittman, MD 328 East Boston St Covington, LA by Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. 322 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL (850) November 5, 2015

2 PURPOSE This addendum replaced revised sections or subsections of the subject report. Appendix C Intersection LOS/ DELAY Evaluation Tables Appendix E Intersection Operational Reports Appendix D Traffic Volume and LOS Maps (added at request of the City of Mandeville) III. TRAFFIC STUDY PROCEDURES B. Trip Generation Analysis ITE Assumptions There are specific Land Use Codes that approximate intended land uses in the Port Marigny Site. ITE trip generation rates and equations in Table 1, are used in this analysis. Peak Hour AM (within 7 to 9 AM) and Peak Hour PM (within 4 to 6 PM) rates and equations are shown with entering and exiting directional distribution percentages. Detailed sheets describing ITE generation are included in Appendix B. Trip distribution is performed on the vehicle trips having one end of the trip off site. Given the ITE trip generation analysis, the project will generate 406 new AM peak hour external vehicle trips, composed of 144 entering trips and 263 exiting trips, and 655 new PM peak hour external trips, composed of 379 entering trips and 276 exiting trips.

3 Table 1. Trip Generation Rates and Equations (ITE Code) /Units Marina (420) 150 Berths Hotel (310) 120 rooms Single Family(210) 188 units Apartment(220) 200 units Condo/Tnhouse (230) 110 units Qual. Restaurant (931) 7k sqft HiTurn Restaurant (932) 4k sqft Shopping Center (820) 60k sqft AM Peak Hour Trips Enter Exit Daily Trips Rate Equation % % Rate Equation 0.19 NA T=1.89x /berth 0.60 NA T=8.95x /room 1.0 /unit T=0.70x LnT=0.92LnX /unit T=0.49x T=6.06x /unit LnT=0.80LnX LnT=0.87LnX /1000 sqft 9.85 /1000 sqft 3.71 /1000 sqft NA NA NA NA NA NA LnT=0.61LnX LnT=0.65LnX+5.83 (ITE Code) /Units Marina (420) 150 Berths Hotel (310) 120 rooms Single Family(210) 188 units Apartment(220) 200 units Condo/Tnhouse (230) 110 units Qual. Restaurant (931) 7k sqft HiTurn Restaurant (932) 4k sqft Shopping Center (820) 60k sqft PM Peak Hour Trips Enter Exit Daily Trips Rate Equation % % Rate Equation 0.19 NA T=1.89x /berth 0.60 NA T=8.95x /room 1.0 /unit LnT=0.90LnX LnT=0.92LnX /unit T=0.55x T=6.06x /unit LnT=0.82LnX LnT=0.87LnX /1000 sqft 9.85 /1000 sqft 3.71 /1000 sqft NA NA NA NA LnT=0.67LnX LnT=0.65LnX+5.83 Internal/Mode Use Capture After the raw vehicle trips are generated, adjustment factors to reflect capture and mode shift percentages are applied to estimate trips between appropriate on site land uses that should be assigned to streets entirely on site. Also a conservative, low estimate of non-auto mode usage is assumed. A general rate of 20% to 30% is normally applied to each raw auto trip calculation. Again, this compensates for the single use and auto dominant data collected for the ITE Trip Generation Manual. This means, for example, for 10 peak hour visitors to a retail shop, 2 or 3 of them also visit another building within the site. Again, as an example, this includes the US Mail delivery and UPS drivers who move between multiple stops at each land use type before leaving the neighborhood. Interaction between site uses and by other modes

4 is expected to reach 30% to 40% however, to analyze the greatest potential impact levels, a 5% percent level is applied for this TIA. Site designers have extensive experience with mixed use, walkable communities and their travel patterns. The remaining 95% of external vehicle trips are assigned to surrounding streets for LOS analysis. Marina 5% internal/mode capture is estimated. Marina guests and owners, already on site for other reasons, routinely visit the retail, restaurant and commercial businesses. Some sales relate directly to boat activity. Hotel 5% internal/mode capture is estimated for this 120 room hotel since guests will routinely visit adjacent restaurants and commercial space. Even delivery, postal and trash pickup vehicles will stop multiple times on each site visit. Restaurants 5% of the restaurant visitors and service vehicles will stop more than once during their PM peak hour visit. Strong interrelationships with the hotel and shops is intended as part of their placement and design within the plan. Many will walk, bike or drive from/to another site use. Commercial Space 5% of the trips entering the commercial uses will be generated on the Port Marigny site, from the hotel, restaurants and other uses as noted above, or they will walk/bike to the commercial uses. Residential Multi-Family/Residential Single Family The same 5% internal capture for mode use and on-site trips. Many shopping patrons will walk or drive to the 60,000 square foot retail uses, before and after engaging in the other compelling, nearby activities. These spaces are located in close proximity. This retail has no highway signs. It is convenient, but not exclusive, for residents, boaters and restaurant/hotel customers. Therefore, retail visitors in the AM and PM peak hour would come from three main areas: o The restaurants, before and after meals. o The hotel o The boating area when they buy supplies Trip Generation results are shown in Tables 2A (AM Peak Hour) and Table 2B (PM Peak Hour).

5

6

7 IV. IMPACTS Trip Distribution External trips are loaded onto surrounding street networks based on logical attraction to developed land and transport facilities in the area. Trips to and from the Port Marigny site will interact with the Causeway access to New Orleans; the general northeasterly grid of downtown Mandeville and points northwest toward Interstate 12 and that related commercial activity. Regarding this distribution, 20% of the external trips are assumed to enter and leave the site to the northeast, along Monroe Street. The Northwest corner will handle 45% of trips in that direction, again on Monroe Street. Many, but not all, the trips accessing the Causeway will use Mariners Boulevard and the access ramps convenient for those movements. The following maps, Figures 4A and 4B, show trip distribution patterns for each street near the site. Figure 4A. Trip Distribution Patterns, Port Marigny Site

8 Figure 4A. Trip Distribution Patterns, Port Marigny Site Appendix C tabulates the AM and PM Levels of Service for the intersection locations in the study area. The LOS is shown for the distribution Scheme L, shown above, as well as for distribution Scheme H. Distribution Scheme H was used in the report and Scheme L was developed as an alternative that would impact the Lambert and Corondelet intersections more heavily as well as the West Bound approach to the Monroe Street East Causeway Approach intersection. Appendix D, a graphical representation of the intersection volumes and LOS, was added to compliment Appendix C. The HCM does not provide an analytical method for determining LOS on low speed local roadway segments; however, for street systems with closely spaced intersections, intersection capacity and LOS dictate the operating conditions of the roadway. The downtown Monroe Street corridor is comprised of a series of 2-way stop controlled intersections with free flow conditions on Monroe Street. As a result, under existing and future traffic conditions, these Monroe Street intersections operate at about 50% intersection capacity utilization or better, a high quality of service equivalent to a LOS of A for Monroe Street progression. An intersection is significantly impacted only if the projected LOS is beyond the level of service standard threshold or if the new trips entering the intersection are more than 20% of the base traffic count volume. As indicated, the stop-controlled intersections on Monroe Street are not significantly impacted during the AM or PM peak hours. It is not uncommon for minor side

9 street approaches under traffic control to not meet LOS standards. In these cases an evaluation of the approach delay and queue length is appropriate as it is often the case that the wait time is not unreasonable and queues are short. The one intersection that is impacted by the development trips is the Monroe Street East Causeway Approach intersection. As noted, the West Bound Approach degrades to LOS E in the AM. The addition of a West-Bound Left Turn Lane alleviates the congestion; therefore, the recommendation to construct this improvement is made per this analysis. In addition, it is recommended that the median at the intersection of Lambert Street with the East Causeway Approach be opened, allowing for full access. This improvement will allow Lambert Street to potentially be established as a more viable access route from the development to the East Causeway Approach. The operational analysis reports are included in Appendix E. V. SUMMARY Given the traffic distribution and analysis sheet above, it is clear that the trips generated by the proposed Port Marigny development plan, can be accommodated by the existing transportation system in western Mandeville. Volumes generated by the site were traced along adjacent streets until they had no impact on the level of service or the 20% significance test specified in the city s TIA regulations. HPE s analysis found the Following: The proposed program will generate 406 AM peak hour trips, 144 Entering and 263 Exiting The proposed program will generate 655 PM peak hour trips, 379 Entering and 276 Exiting The addition of a West Bound Left Turn Lane at the Monroe St. East Causeway Approach intersection is recommended Providing full access at the intersection of Lambert Street with the East Causeway Approach is recommended. The Proposed program for the Port Marigny Site will generate a reasonable number of trips and congestion should not become adverse, based on the capacity of current networks. The TIA showed there is sufficient capacity available in the Mandeville street grid and surrounding streets, through the horizon year.

10 APPENDIX C LOS / DELAY INTERSECTION EVALUATION TABLES

11 AM LOS/DELAY Evaluation with 5% Retention Monroe St. - West Service Road Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) B A A B 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H B B B C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L B B B C Intersection Delay (sec) Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 11 50% 49 54% 14 53% Monroe St. - East Causeway Approach (signalized) Alternative EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Delay (sec) 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) D N/A D D N/A D C B B D N/A E AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H D N/A D E N/A D D B B E N/A F AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L E N/A D E N/A D C B B E N/A F AM (SBRTL) / Scheme H D N/A D D N/A D C B B D E D AM (SBRTL+SBLTL) / Scheme H D N/A D D N/A D C B B C D D AM (WBLTL) / Scheme H* D N/A D D D D D B B D N/A E AM (SBRTL) / Scheme L D N/A D D N/A D C B B D E D AM (SBRTL+SBLTL) / Scheme L D N/A D D N/A D C B B C D D AM (WBLTL) / Scheme L* D N/A D D D D C B B D N/A E 48 * Recommended improvement = add WBLTL Monroe St. - Cambronne Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C C Monroe St. - Kleber Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A F D 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A F D No improvement recommended based on inconsistency in traffic counts. Monroe St. - Lambert Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A N/A B 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C C Monroe St. - Massena Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A B C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C C Monroe St. - Corondelet Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A E C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A E D 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A F D No improvement recommended based on existing condition, minor increase in approach delay and low ICU. NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) 13 N/A NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 38% 44% 42% Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 42% 44% 43% Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 32% 47% 47% Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 33% 40% 40% Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 36% 37% 52% East Causeway Approach - Mariners Blvd. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A A N/A N/A 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A A N/A N/A 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A A N/A N/A WB Approach Delay (sec) Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 13% 27% 27%

12 East Causeway Approach - Cambronne St. Alternative EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Delay (sec) 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) A A A B B A B N/A B B N/A B AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H A A A B C B A N/A B B N/A A AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L A A A B C B A N/A B B N/A A 19 East Causeway Approach - Kleber Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C N/A 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C N/A 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C N/A East Causeway Approach - Lambert St. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A A N/A 2025 AM (OPEN MEDIAN) / Scheme H N/A N/A C E 2025 AM (OPEN MEDIAN) / Scheme L N/A N/A C E * ten SB trips were added to approach (4 left,2 thru,4 right) to indicate impact of opening median. Additional improvements not recommended until signal warrants are met. East Causeway Approach - Massena St. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A D E 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A D E 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A D E No improvement recommended based on existing condition and no impact from Senerios 'H' or 'L'. Florida St. (US190) - Corondelet St. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 AM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A B C Uncontrolled approaches at two-way stop intersections, LOS analysis is not applicable. NB Approach Delay (sec) Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 16 49% 16 49% 16 49% NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) 10 N/A NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 36% 43% 51% Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 60% 60% 60% Intersection Capacity Utilitzation 36% 79% 80%

13 PM LOS/DELAY Evaluation with 5% Retention Monroe St. - West Service Road Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) A A A C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H B B B D 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L B B B D Intersection Delay (sec) Monroe St. - East Causeway Approach Alternative EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Delay (sec) 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) C N/A C C N/A C B B B C N/A C PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H D N/A D D N/A D C C B C N/A C PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L D N/A D D N/A D C C C C N/A C 31 Monroe St. - Cambronne Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C Monroe St. - Kleber Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A N/A C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C C Monroe St. - Lambert Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A N/A B 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C C Monroe St. - Massena Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A B C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C D 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C D No improvement recommended based on minor increase in approach delay and low ICU. Monroe St. - Corondelet Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C B 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A C C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A C B East Causeway Approach - Mariners Blvd. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A B N/A N/A 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A C N/A N/A 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A B N/A N/A NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) N/A NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) N/A NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) WB Approach Delay (sec) East Causeway Approach - Cambronne St. Alternative EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Delay (sec) 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) B N/A B A A A A N/A N/A B N/A A PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H A A A B C B B N/A B B N/A B PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L A A A B C B B N/A B B N/A B 16

14 East Causeway Approach - Kleber Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A E N/A 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A E N/A 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A E N/A No improvement recommended based on existing condition and no impact from Senerios 'H' or 'L'. East Causeway Approach - Lambert St. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A C N/A 2025 PM (OPEN MEDIAN) / Scheme H N/A N/A B D 2025 PM (OPEN MEDIAN) / Scheme L N/A N/A F E No improvement recommended until signal warrants are met. * ten SB trips were added to approach (4 left,2 thru,4 right) to indicate impact of opening median. East Causeway Approach - Massena St. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A F E 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A F E 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A F E No improvement recommended based on existing condition and no impact from Senerios 'H' or 'L'. Florida St. (US190) - Corondelet St. Alternative EB WB NB SB 2015 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) N/A N/A F C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme H N/A N/A F C 2025 PM (EXISTING GEOMETRY) / Scheme L N/A N/A F F No improvement recommended until signal warrants are met. NB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) 15 N/A NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) NB Approach Delay (sec) SB Approach Delay (sec) Uncontrolled approaches at two-way stop intersections, LOS analysis is not applicable.

15 APPENDIX D TRAFFIC VOLUME AND LOS MAPS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 APPENDIX E OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS REPORTS (SYNCHRO) 2015 AM, 2025 AM, 2015 PM, 2025 PM in order of Intersection

23 2015 AM 35: West Service Road & Monroe St. 10/29/2015 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 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 B Delay 11.4 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.1% ICU Level of Service A

24 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme H 35: West Service Road & Monroe St. 10/27/2015 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 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 B B C Delay 13.6 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A

25 2025 AM 5% retention / Senario L 35: West Service Road & Monroe St. 11/5/2015 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 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 B B C Delay 13.6 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A

26 2015 AM 22: Monroe St. & East Causeway Approach 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Number Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Adj No. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS D D D D C B B D E Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS D D B E Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.4 HCM 2010 LOS D

27 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme H 22: Monroe St. & East Causeway Approach 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Number Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Adj No. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS D D E D D B B E F Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS D E C E Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 62.9 HCM 2010 LOS E

28 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme L 22: Monroe St. & East Causeway Approach 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Number Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Adj No. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS E D E D C B B E F Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS D E C E Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.6 HCM 2010 LOS E

29 2025 AM SBRTL 22: Monroe St. & East Causeway Approach 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Number Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Adj No. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS D D D D C B B D E D Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS D D C D Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.2 HCM 2010 LOS D

30 2025 AM SBRTL+SBLTL 22: Monroe St. & East Causeway Approach 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Number Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Adj No. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS D D D D C B B C D D Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS D D C D Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.5 HCM 2010 LOS D

31 2025 AM WBLTL 22: Monroe St. & East Causeway Approach 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Number Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Adj No. of Lanes Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS D D D D D C B B D E Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS D D C E Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+i1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.6 HCM 2010 LOS D

32 2015 AM 1: Monroe & Cambronne St 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A

33 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme H 1: Monroe & Cambronne St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service A

34 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Monroe & Cambronne St 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.2% ICU Level of Service A

35 2015 AM 3: Monroe & Kleber St 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.6% ICU Level of Service A

36 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme H 3: Monroe & Kleber St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A F D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS F D Average Delay 6.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1% ICU Level of Service A

37 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme L 3: Monroe & Kleber St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A F D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS F D Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.3% ICU Level of Service A

38 2015 AM 6: Monroe & Lambert St 10/28/2015 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU Level of Service A

39 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme H 6: Monroe & Lambert St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service A

40 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme L 6: Monroe & Lambert St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8% ICU Level of Service A

41 2015 AM 8: Monroe & Massena St 10/29/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A B C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B C Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.0% ICU Level of Service A

42 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme H 8: Monroe & Massena St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.0% ICU Level of Service A

43 2025 AM 5% retention - Scheme L 8: Monroe & Massena St 10/27/2015 Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 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 # EB 1 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 A A C C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS C C Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.9% ICU Level of Service A