The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210757 Myrtle Street Site Plan Correspondance � Cr�i�htt�n January19, 2022 � �� Mr. Kevin Ronayne, FACHE Saratoga Hospital 211 Church Street Saratoga Springs, New York, 12866 RE: Response to Comments, Mor�an Street Medica� Office, Mor�an Street, City of Sarato�a Springs, Sarato�a County, New York;CM Project No. 120-372 Dear Mr. Ronayne, Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP (CM) has reviewed the traffic related comments associated with MorganStreetMedicalOffice provided bythe Chazen Companies(CityofSaratoga Springs reviewengineer) in a December 9, 2021 letter. Below is a summary of the traffic related comments and our responses. Origir►al Comment#2—The traffic evaluation r►otes a 20-to.30-.second ir►crea�e in delay a.s a result from the project at the irrter�ection of Church St and Myrtle .Sts i►owever, ti►e .study doe.s r►ot evaluate georrretric improverr�ent.s ar►d orrly note.s rr�onitoring future cor►ditiorr.s for po.ssible sigr►al timirrg adjustmerrt.s. The applicarrt.should corr.s�der evaluatirrg poter►tial geometric improvement.s to mitigate ti►e irrcrea.se in delay. CM Origir►al Respor►se: Gearrretric irrrprovemerrts were considered at this intersections haweverA ROW constraints, parkir►g lats and existirrg bu�ldirrg locations lirrr�t the potential far roadway widerrir►g at the Church Street/ll�yrtle.Street intersectior►. The level af serviee assessment irrdicates the interseetiorr would operate at LOS D or better during peak hours after full build-out of the siteA with sigr►al tirrr�ng adjustmerrts. The only geometric irrrprovemerrt that would provide a r►oticeable reductior► irr delay at this irrtersectior► wauld be the additian of a left-turn larre, through lane, and separate right turrr larre on the southbound llilyrtle Street appraach. A review of the intersection indicates that widening in this approach would sigrrificarrtly irrrpact the Saratoga Spine business and is not corrsiclered practical. Updated Comment#2—The proposed project has significant irnpact to the intersection of Church Street at Myrtle Street. Mitigation measures should be provided that fully mitigate the impacts to No-Build conditions, ineluding eoneepts of the improvements and their potential impacts to adjoinin�lands.This information will allow the City to be fully informed about the impaets and the possible improvements. Miti�ation measures eould also inelude a reduetion in the projeet size. Additional detail should be provided on the capacity analysis worksheets that include the 95th percentile queue len�ths. Avera�e queue lengths for build conditions on the Myrtle Street southbound approach are lon�and will prevent access into the ri�ht-turn lane. It can be expected that the 95th percenti�e queue length, the queue len�th typically referenced in analyses,will be si�nificant�y lon�er. Response: A review of the Trip Generation Manual indicates that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has published an updated version of this resource (11t" edition) which takes into account the surrounding uses of inedical offices; therefore, the trip generation estimate has been updated to account for the proximityto the existingSaratoga Hospital and related medical office space. The trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using land use code (LUC) 720 for Medical/Dental Office located within/near a hospital campus. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation estimate for the AM and PM peak hours. Cr-�ic�htan Mar�r�in� E��gin�er�nr�, �LP � � Winn�rs C:ircle� A�bany, NY 122t]5 J S1t3.44b.f7:3y�5 � ww�w.cn-��kl�.com Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE lanuary 19,2022 Page 2 of 8 �ab0e 1—�ro�Gene�a�io�Su�nmary lJpdate AM Peak H�ur PM Peak Hour Lan�Use Si�� LUC E�uter Exit Total Eruter Exit Tota� Phase 1 1 Medical Building 75 KSF 720 164 38 202 55 166 221 Phase 2 2 Medical Buildings 30 KSF 720 65 15 80 21 63 84 F�II Bui��-Out a29 53 2�2 76 a29 305 Table 1 shows that Phase 1 (2027) of the proposed medical facility is expected to generate approximately 202 new vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 221 new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. In addition, the construction of two medical office buildings totaling 30,000 SF associated with Phase 2 (2031) will generate a total of 80 new vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and a total of 84 new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Traffic generated by the proposed project was re-distributed at the study area intersections similar to the original analysis. The resulting trip assignment for Phase 1 (2027) and Full Build-Out (Phase 2 in 2031)are shown on Figure 1.The site generated trips were added to the 2027 and 2031 No-Build traffic volumes resulting in the Phase 1 (2027) and Full Build-Out(Phase 2) 2031 traffic volumes.These traffic volumes represent expected traffic conditions after full build-out of the proposed project and are shown on Figure 2. As requested above, a geometric improvement alternative was included in the assessment. As noted in our original response, the available right-of-way (ROW) at the Church Street/Myrtle Street intersection limits potential widening on all four corners of the intersection. In addition, only the provision of three southbound lanes on Myrtle Street would provide any significant benefit to operations of the existing traffic signal;therefore,for the purposes of this exercise, it was assumed that ROW limitations could be overcome through an asymmetrical widening toward Saratoga Hospital in order to provide the Saratoga Springs Planning Board with an alternative improvement scenario. A concept with an exclusive left-turn lane, a through lane, and a separate right-turn lane on the southbound Myrtle Street approach has been included in the analysis. A concept of this improvement is shown below.Similar to the original traffic assessment, intersection evaluations were made using the Synchro Software which automates the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the results of the level of service calculations for the proposed project with the revised trip generation and additional improvement scenario. It is noted that a Phase 2A and Phase 2B has been provided which shows incremental impacts associated with the construction of a two separate 15,000 SF buildings being constructed after Phase 1 is complete.The detailed level of service analyses are included under Attachment A. Provide Separate Left-Turn, i�� I � � N }i Through,and Right-Turn +�+��,:j � f � I} r Lanes on the SB Approach �'„ P! j ! � ,, . _ � . 1 r' � � �-�-�-� .. r ' ; __. _ . ' �=.: - - - _- ' . �. _ � � -- _ _ � - -- - _-- -� -� - -- — __ - �-- , _'. " = r "�'� �. r �. �� ;,.. — _� � �� , , . Widen and Replace Curb +' � ' Replace Traffic Signal, Asymmetrical Widening on Ramps in the SE corner �� Lighting,and Utility Poles East Side of Myrtle Street � I i r � i. � � ��fC31C]h�Ofl 1MF .,_.�r,r;;riri Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE January 19,2022 Page 3 of 8 Table 2-Level of Service Summary-AM Peak Hour Intersection AM Peak Hour 2031(Phase 2A/2B) 2027(Phase 1B Phase 2A Phase 2B � Build v�r/ Na-Build Build v�r/ Build v�r/ Build v�r/ � No-Build 9uild Signal Build Signal Timing Build Signal Timing Geametric ° Timing Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Church Street/ S Myrtle Street Church St EB L B(11.1) B(13.1) -- B(11.2) B(13.9) -- B(14.5) -- B(14.5) TR B(12.0) B(11.5) -- B(12.1) B(11.4) -- B(11.3) -- B(11.3) Church St WB L B(10.4) B(10.1) -- B(10.4) A(10.0) -- A(10.0) -- A(10.0) TR B(17.2) B(17.5) -- B(17.2) B(17.5) -- B(17.5) -- B(17.5) Myrtle St NB LTR C(23.6) C(25.5) -- C(23.8) C(26.2) -- C(26.6) -- C(26.6) Myrtle St SB LT C(23.8) C(25.5) -- C(24.1) C(26.2) -- C(26.5) -- -- ��] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C(25.7) �T] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C(24.9) R B(19.3) C(20.7) -- B(19.7) C(21.4) -- C(21.6) -- C(21.6) Overall B(15.4) B(15.9) -- B(15.4) B(16.1) -- B(16.3) -- B(16.2) S,AW,TW=Signalized,All-Way Stop,or Two-Way Stop,controlled intersection EB,WB,NB,SB=Eastbound,Westbound,Northbound,or Southbound intersection approaches L,T,R=Left-turn,Through,and/or Right-turn intersection movements,[L]=Proposed Geometry X(Y.Y)=Level of service(Average Delay in seconds per vehicle) --=Not Applicable Table 3-Level of Service Summary-PI�I Peak Hour Intersection PM Peak Hour 2031(Phas�2A/2B) 2027(Phase 1) Phase 2A Phase 2B � Build v�r/ No-Build Build v�r/ Build v�r/ Build v�r/ � No-Build Build Si�nal Build Signal Timin� Build Signal Timing Geametric ° Timing Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Church Street/ S Myrtle Street Church St EB L A(9.9) B(16.5) B(17.0) A(9.9) B(16.7) B(19.3) B(16.8) B(19.4) B(12.0) TR B(13.3) C(21.6) C(23.1) B(13.3) C(21.7) C(28.7) C(21.6) C(28.6) B(15.9) Church St WB L B(10.1) B(16.0) B(16.5) B(10.1) B(16.1) B(18.4) B(16.0) B(18.4) B(11.7) TR B(15.9) C(24.9) C(26.8) B(15.9) C(25.1) C(33.7) C(25.1) C(33.8) B(19.8) Myrtle St NB LTR C(21.4) C(24.3) C(23.5) C(21.7) C(25.2) C(24.9) C(25.3) C(24.9) C(21.6) Myrtle St SB LT C(23.5) D(37.2) C(33.5) C(24.0) D(48.6) D(41.7) E(61.5) D(51.4) -- ��] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C(23.8) �T] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C(22.2) R B(19.1) B(19.6) B(19.2) B(19.4) C(20.2) B(18.8) C(20.4) B(19.0) C(20.3) Overall B(15.7) C(24.0) C(24.7) B(15.8) C(25.7) C(30.0) C(27.5) C(31.3) B(18.5) S,AW,TW=Signalized,All-Way Stop,or Two-Way Stop,controlled intersection EB,WB,NB,SB=Eastbound,Westbound,Northbound,or Southbound intersection approaches L,T,R=Left-turn,Through,and/or Right-turn intersection movements,[L]=Proposed Geometry X(Y.Y)=Level of service(Average Delay in seconds per vehicle) --=Not Applicable The analysis indicates that the PM peak hour represents worst-case conditions at the Church Street/Myrtle Street intersection. This intersection will operate at an overall LOS B/C during the AM and PM peak hours after construction of the Phase 1 building (75,000 SF) with all movements operating at LOS D or better. It is noted that with minor signal timing modifications, all movements will operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours with an increase in overall delay of approximately one and nine seconds during the AM and PM peaks hours, respectively. No geometric improvements are necessary to mitigate these Phase I conditions. � ti Creic�hton � :`�;::,,.,r,;rir� Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE January 19,2022 Page 4 of 8 The analysis also indicates that afterthe construction ofone 15,000 SF building(Phase 2A),this intersection will operate at an overall LOS B/C during the AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS D or better. It is noted that minor signal timing modifications can minimize the increased delay on the southbound Myrtle Street approach during the PM peak hour. No geometric improvements would be necessary to mitigate Phase 2A conditions. After full build-out of the site (an additional 15,000 SF associated with Phase 2B), this intersection will operate at an overall LOS B/C during the AM and PM peak hours with the southbound shared left- turn/through lane operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. It is noted that minor signal timing modifications will improve the LOS E to LOS D conditions during the PM peak hour and that the overall intersection will continue to operate at LOS B/C during the AM and PM peak hours. If a separate left-turn lane and through lane are provided on the southbound Myrtle Street approach, this intersection will operate at an overall LOS B during both peak hours with all movements operating at LOS C or better. It is noted that a geometric improvement would impact the hospital parking lot, utilities, drainage, and the existing traffic signal poles. It is estimated that this improvement would cost approximately $675,000. A geometric improvement is not recommended at this intersection since adequate operations will be provided without roadway widening. Queuin�Evaluation A queuing evaluation was conducted on the southbound Myrtle Street approach at the Church Street intersection to determine if queuing will impact the abilityto access the existing right-turn lane or will block the access into Saratoga Hospital. The existing right-turn lane is 175-feet long (7 vehicles) and has an approximately 100-foot long taper. In addition, the entrance to the Emergency Center for general walk- ins/drop-offs is located 275-feet north of Church Street while the entrance to the Intensive Care Unit for ambulances is located 475-feet north of Church Street. It is noted that the southbound Myrtle Street approach can accommodate approximately 11 and 19 vehicles in queue before operations of the Emergency Center and Intensive Care Unit will be impacted, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the queues on the southbound Myrtle Street approach after full build-out of the proposed medical offices. Table 4—Fu01 Build-Out Queuing Summary(in vehicles) AM Peak Haur PM Peak Hour 2031 2031 2031 Intersection Available 2031 2031 Build w/ 2031 Build w/ Build w/ Starage No-Build 9uild Geometric No-Build Si�nal Geametri� Imp. Timing Imp. Imp. SOtn 95m S�m 95m S�m 95m SOcn 95m SOcn 95m SOcn 95m Church Street/Myrtle Street Myrtle Street SB LT 11 1 2 2 3 -- -- 2 4 7 12 -- -- [L] 11 -- -- -- -- 1 2 -- -- -- -- 2 4 [T] 7 -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- 1 2 R 7 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 3 4 6 3 6 EB,WB,NB,SB=Eastbound,Westbound,Northbound,and Southbound intersection approaches L,T,R=Left-turn,Through,and/or Right-turn movements,[L]=Proposed Geometry The Synchro model indicates that afterfull build-out ofthe proposed medical offices,the southbound right- turn lane will experience average vehicle queues of approximately two and four vehicles (50 to 100-feet) during the AM and PM peak hours while the 95t" percentile queue is approximately four to six vehicles(100 to 150-feet)during the AM and PM peak hours.The existing right-turn lane can accommodate these vehicle queues. In addition, the Synchro model indicates that after full build-out of the proposed medical office (with signal timing improvements during the PM peak hour),the southbound shared left-turn/through lane will experience average vehicle queues of approximately two and seven vehicles (50 to 175-feet) during the AM and PM peak hours while the 95t" percentile queue is approximately three to 12 vehicles (75 to � ti Creic�hton 1M� :`��;e;�..�r;�r�r� Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE January 19,2022 Page 5 of 8 300-feet) during the AM and PM peak hours. This suggest that average vehicle queues in the shared left- turn through lane will not block vehicles from accessing the 175-foot long right-turn lane and will not block the Emergency Center driveway. It is noted that the 95t"percentile queue during the PM peak hour would block vehicles from accessing the right-turn lane and would briefly extend past the Emergency Center driveway. It is anticipated that these worst-case condition queues will dissipate quickly as the traffic signal cycles through the timing plan. It noted that the southbound queue would not impact the Intensive Care Unitdrivewaythat accommodate ambulances.The queuing assessment also indicates that the construction of an additional lane on the southbound approach will reduce average and 95t" percentile queues on Myrtle Street during both peak hours. Original Comrrrent#3—The study rrotes that there's heavy pedestriarr activii}r that exists acrass Myrtle Street, but daes rrot discuss/arralyze how the project will impact these heavily used crossings. The applieant should cansider ewaluating the impact af the project arr the pedestrian tra�fic and whether any additional improvemerrts are warranted, as the project generates a sigrrificarrt level af traffic. CM Original Response:A review of existirrg corrditians irrdicates that twa mid-black marked crosswalks are currently provided for pedestriarrs to cross 1lmlyrtle 5'treet approximately 350 feet and 560 feet north of the sigrralized C'hurch Street/Myrtle Street intersection. Pedestrian activity at these►rrarked crosswalks was reported in the Traffic Evaluatiarr letfl�er during the morning peak periad�7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.►n.J arrd the afterrroon peak period{4:00 p.rrr. to 6:00 p.m.J. It i.s agreed that heavy pedestriar►aetivity a.ssociated with err►ployee� arrd visitors wa.s ob.served aeee.ssir►g Saratoga Ho.spital and related land use.s orr Myrtle Street with over 250 pede.striar►.s ob.served durirrg the All�peak hour and over 1.50 pede�trian.s ob.served during the PM peak i►our at both cro.s.sir►gs irr total. The data irrdicate.s that approximately�.5°a of the pede.str�arr.s ob.served durir►g the.se peak tirr►e.s u.sed the r►orthern cro.sswalk dcre to the location of ti►e large parkir►g fields. It is r►oted that RRF�s(6iectar►gular Rapid Flash�ng�eaconsJ were recently irrstalled by the City of.Saratoga Sprirrgs as part of the�r Pedestrian.Safety Design arrd Engirreerirrg project at the nar-�herrr crosswalk to prov�de enharrced accarr�modatians for pedestriar►s. Ir► additior►A appropriate sigr►age was provided at the southerrr crasswalk to alert drivers of this crassing corrdit�orr. After full bu�ldout it is ar►ticipated that Myrtle Street will earperienee appraarirrrately 635 ta 690 vehicles durirrg the A11�ar►d PM peak hours, respectively. A review af Figure 2a for the C'ity af Baulder Guidelines for the Installatian af Pedestrian Hybrid�eacons, Pedestrian Sigrrals, ar RRF� Signs on Low-Speed Roadways shows that the RRFB will rerrrain an appropriate pedestriarr acco►rrmodation at the northern crosswalk. No additiarral pedestrian accomrr►odatiarrs abave and beyond the improved sidewalk network noted in the Traffic Evaluatiarr letter is recom►rrended. Updated Comment#3—The RRFB reference material of the City of Boulder should be provided as well as a discussion as to why and how it applies to NVS/Saratoga Springs. The hospital and proposed medieal offiees are related uses and it ean be expected that the pedestrian activity will increase on Myrtle Street due to the projeet, espeeially since pedestrians will be required to cross Myrtle Street as the side�nra�k alternates from one side of the street to the other.An estirnate of the increase should be provided. What v�rere the observations of trafFic queues and the number of times the RRFB's v�ere activated during the pedestrian activity counts? The hi�h volume of pedestrian crossin�s and the increases in trafFic may si�nificantly impact the trafFic flows and delays alon�Myrtle Street.An analysis of the impacts on delays and queues should be provided for existing and proposed conditions. What, if any, are the recommendations for enhanced visibility of the crossvvalles proposed near the project site, especially as a crosswalk is proposed on a curve? Response: New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) TSMI 18-02 notes that the Boulder, CO document has been deemed a best practice by the National Association of City � i Creic�hton � :`,_.,r.,r,;rir� Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE January 19,2022 Page 6 of 8 Transportation Officials (NACTO) and it may be used as a resource when evaluating the need for a RRFB at a specific location.The City of Boulder reference material is included under Attachment B. Additional pedestrian observations were taken on Thursday, December 17, 2021 during the morning and afternoon peak hours identified during the original January 6, 2021 observations. Table 5 summarizes the original and recent observations taken in January 2021 and in December 2021. Information provided by Saratoga Hospital indicates that Covid testing peaked in January 2021 (545 tests per day) but generally returned to average conditions in December 2021 (225 test per day). The data suggest that the high number of pedestrians observed in January 2021 were likely due to the testing surge experienced during that time. Pedestrian crossings decreased by approximately 30% during the AM peak hour and 19% during the PM peak hour when compared to recent observations. Table 5—Myrtle Street Pedestrian Activity Comparison Mlyrtle Street Crosswalks Tirrie Period Northern Crossuvalk Southern Crosswalk Total EB W� EB V�/6 EB W6 Morning Peak Period January 2021 147 65 36 17 183 82 (7:00 to 8:00 a.m.) December 2021 106 68 6 4 112 72 Afternoon Peak Period January 2021 10 134 17 13 27 147 ---------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (4:00 to 5:00 p.m.) December 2021 22 112 3 4 25 116 A more detailed review of pedestrian activity indicates that the 184 and 141 pedestrians observed during the AM and PM peak hours in December 2021 actually crossed in 113 and 91 separate groups, respectively, and therefore did not stop traffic for each crossing. Pedestrians at the northern crosswalk pressed the button to activate the RRFB signal approximately 37% of the time during the AM peak hour and 13% of the time during the PM peak hour. In addition, it took pedestrians an average of six seconds to cross the street during both peak hours.These 113 to 91 separate groups stopped traffic about halfthe time which typically caused an average northbound and southbound queue of two vehicles on Myrtle Street that had an average vehicle delay of approximately seven seconds during both peak hours. These queues did not impact operations of the driveways located along Myrtle Street. It is noted that there will be approximately 470 to 432 vehicles on Myrtle Street during the AM and PM peak hours south of Morgan Street, respectively, if the medical offices are not constructed.This will increase by 189 and 221 vehicles after full build- out of the site during the AM and PM peak hours (659 total vehicles during the AM peak hour and 653 total vehicles during the PM peak hour). It is not anticipated that vehicle queues will dramatically increase as a result of increased pedestrian activity and vehicles associated with the site. In addition, the queuing assessment included under response to Comment #2 indicates that the southbound queue on Myrtle Street from Church Street will not impact the southern and northern pedestrian crossings located 315-feet and 520-feet north of the signalized intersection. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide data with regard to pedestrian trips associated with medical office buildings; however, a review of trip generation characteristics for general offices indicates that a 105,000 SF building will generate approximately 12 pedestrians during the AM peak hour and 16 pedestrians during the PM peak hour. It is assumed that a medical office will generate similar pedestrians during the peak hours.A review of the figure below indicates that an increase of 50 pedestrian trips during either peak hour would still not trigger the potential need for a full pedestrian signal at this location and would therefore not change the conclusions of the � ti Creic�hton � :`�;::,,.,r,;rir� Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE lanuary 19,2022 Page 7 of 8 original traffic assessment. Even with higher pedestrian crossings, a full pedestrian signal may not be appropriate. Figure 2a City of Boulder Guidelines for the Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons,Pedestrian Signals,or RRFB Signs on Low-Speed Roadways(Speeds of 35-mph or Less) :i{]{1 AM Peak Hour L=crossw�lk lertc�th for�se when c�nsidering HAWI� ' -174 Pedestrians �w � 40�7 -659 Vehicles �� - =Consider Hawk or RRFB � �� i ��rQ CONSfDER�!A W�' �� ' ,� ��, vr��sr�rvat �� 30€l � , '{� f, ��yar�� C��fLY . (L, � � ^{ � ��', ��t �`�4HS1OERffAYrYf.". �� .� !3` pfA S�Gh4s� /� � � .� t�xysnoek rrams.ven � �� 20C1 � ' ��* � f�rro�Fr,aov s��++eoRma�s ni.,�i. ��`�'r' �$` �C7 � � i .� k �� 1! .�{��* J� � 1� 1 'm�� '�4 C.'1ea.Ri�:fF �.� _�rir;�'iIAHS�NALf��AF4��l=:u.J=:� �� j} � � •� � N�vn<�RRF6 � PM Peak Hour I:?� H [f] lL "I .,r � �- .��"�! � �/',.•.�� fs�C5E5YFilAN SIGNAL A310UR �]� p 1�� + � -134 Pedestrians 1�7 ~� W c�'$+�+� '+ �`°ti* -653 Vehicles C7 � � Rr�a ti `*.., �,.. =Consider Hawk or RRFB 2t7 y - - - - ----"�-,.__�_,�._—_ - - - - - - - - - - 2Q 0 2�U 5D4 75�5 �44Q 1254 15{]C1 1750 2U(}L� 2250 250{J 275�1 30U4 32�6 u (1�0 vpn ar 1.5L[1 vpc�J MAJC�R STFC�ET-TC}TAL�F��TH.4RPRflA�;HES- 'VEHICLES PEF2 HQU�{VF'H} • Recommendation based on City of Boulder Safety Evaluations at existing RRFB sites and observed impacts to vehicular traffic operations. It is proposed that the new Myrtle Street/Morgan Street/Site Driveway intersection operate under all-way stop control; therefore, pedestrians will be able to cross each leg of the intersection when opposing vehicles are stopped at the intersection. While marked pedestrian crosswalks can be provided at this location, it is our opinion that additional enhanced pedestrian accommodations are not required. Su�e PDa� Co�nme�t#1: A Da�ge, wu�e inte�see�uo� co�sisting of th�ee sma00e�fu10-movement interseetuons us p�o�osed at the e�t�a�ce to the site. Considera�uo� s�ou�ld �e�iven to �edu�cin�t�e size of t�e u�tersection a�d e�eatin�a T-u�tersectio�. Response:The redesign of the internal intersection can be discussed with the board further during the site plan review. There are benefits and negatives to the redesign which should be discussed with the full board before proceeding to modify the current design. Su�e PDa�Comment#2:A�incomplete sodewaOBc os�roposed i�the cen�er o�the�arBcimg lot d'o�eetly across tB�e rnain e�t�a�ce to��e o�fice�uuld°o��.W�at is e�vosione�for�edes��ians to cross at t�is lo�atio�a�d fo�othe�s that are pa�ked elsevvhe�e u�t�e lo�vvhe�e��ere are no sudewaOBes? Response: The sidewalks within the site can be modified to include a pedestrian cross walk to the covered entrance. These modifications to the site plan can be discussed with the planning board during the site plan review. � i Creic�hton � :`,_.,r.,r,;rir� Mr. Kevin Ronayne,FACHE lanuary 19,2022 Page 8 of 8 Please call our office if you have any questions or comments regarding the above analysis. Respectfully submitted, C�eigh�on Ma�nung �n�u�eeru�g, LLP �G�.��'' " �`�- Mark fUadalny � r Assoclate N:�Projects�2020�120-372 Saratoga Hospital-Morgan St Office�Working�Traffic�Reports�20220119_Response to Chazen Comments 20211209 120372.docx � y�fL'!C.]h�Ofl 1M► :`�;::�r,r;;rir� Attachment A HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office No-Build 2027 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 136 593 10 5 459 85 12 51 1 49 24 118 Future Volume(veh/h) 136 593 10 5 459 85 12 51 1 49 24 118 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 690 12 6 534 99 14 59 1 57 28 137 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 418 971 17 328 679 126 94 258 4 244 103 416 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1785 31 1810 1507 279 162 1622 24 934 645 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 0 702 6 0 633 74 0 0 85 0 137 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1786 1809 0 0 1579 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.5 0.0 18.1 0.1 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.5 0.0 18.1 0.1 0.0 19.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.67 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 418 0 988 328 0 805 356 0 0 347 0 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.71 0.02 0.00 0.79 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 629 0 1559 711 0 1533 739 0 0 681 0 768 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 10.3 0.0 10.7 10.3 0.0 14.7 23.1 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 18.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 0.8 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.1 0.0 12.0 10.4 0.0 17.2 23.6 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 19.3 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 860 639 74 222 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.9 17.1 23.6 21.1 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 40.2 16.0 12.6 34.3 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.1 4.1 4.5 21.0 6.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.5 0.4 0.4 7.4 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 01/19/2022 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2027 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 194 593 10 5 459 109 12 76 1 58 30 132 Future Volume(veh/h) 194 593 10 5 459 109 12 76 1 58 30 132 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 226 690 12 6 534 127 14 88 1 67 35 153 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 413 1000 17 344 668 159 81 259 3 233 104 409 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.56 0.56 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1785 31 1810 1434 341 121 1690 18 921 678 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 226 0 702 6 0 661 103 0 0 102 0 153 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1775 1828 0 0 1599 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.8 0.0 18.1 0.1 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.8 0.0 18.1 0.1 0.0 20.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.66 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 413 0 1017 344 0 827 343 0 0 337 0 409 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.80 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 607 0 1500 712 0 1465 719 0 0 652 0 747 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 11.5 0.0 10.3 10.1 0.0 14.9 24.8 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 19.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.3 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 7.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.1 0.0 11.5 10.1 0.0 17.5 25.5 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 20.7 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C A C Approach Vol,veh/h 928 667 103 255 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.9 17.4 25.5 22.6 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 42.6 16.0 12.9 36.5 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.1 5.2 5.8 22.7 7.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.5 0.6 0.6 7.7 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office No-Build 2027 PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 74 669 3 16 580 22 15 25 12 94 60 152 Future Volume(veh/h) 74 669 3 16 580 22 15 25 12 94 60 152 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 79 712 3 17 617 23 16 27 13 100 64 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 401 971 4 330 814 30 116 160 60 254 126 407 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1848 69 224 948 354 921 748 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 79 0 715 17 0 640 56 0 0 164 0 162 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1917 1527 0 0 1669 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.3 0.0 17.1 0.3 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.3 0.0 17.1 0.3 0.0 16.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.29 0.23 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 401 0 975 330 0 844 336 0 0 380 0 407 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.73 0.05 0.00 0.76 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 670 0 1790 707 0 1752 706 0 0 748 0 786 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 0.0 11.7 10.0 0.0 13.9 21.1 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 18.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 0.4 0.0 6.4 0.1 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.9 0.0 13.3 10.1 0.0 15.9 21.4 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 19.1 LnGrp LOS A A B B A B C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 794 657 56 326 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.9 15.8 21.4 21.4 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.7 35.4 16.0 11.1 32.0 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 19.1 7.0 3.3 18.6 7.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.7 0.3 0.2 7.5 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 01/19/2022 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2027 PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 94 669 3 16 580 30 15 33 12 135 85 210 Future Volume(veh/h) 94 669 3 16 580 30 15 33 12 135 85 210 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 100 712 3 17 617 32 16 35 13 144 90 223 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 310 900 4 251 749 39 61 116 31 209 110 589 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1818 94 21 398 107 472 376 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 100 0 715 17 0 649 64 0 0 234 0 223 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1913 526 0 0 848 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.5 0.0 25.4 0.4 0.0 24.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.5 0.0 25.4 0.4 0.0 24.8 23.5 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.25 0.20 0.62 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 310 0 904 251 0 788 208 0 0 319 0 589 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.00 0.79 0.07 0.00 0.82 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 477 0 1288 509 0 1258 208 0 0 319 0 589 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 15.7 0.0 18.8 15.9 0.0 21.5 23.1 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 19.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 3.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.0 0.0 11.3 0.2 0.0 11.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.5 0.0 21.6 16.0 0.0 24.9 24.3 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 19.6 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A D A B Approach Vol,veh/h 815 666 64 457 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.0 24.6 24.3 28.6 Approach LOS f C f C C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 43.9 30.0 12.3 39.8 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 27.4 25.5 4.5 26.8 24.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.2 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2027-Signal Improvement PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 94 669 3 16 580 30 15 33 12 135 85 210 Future Volume(veh/h) 94 669 3 16 580 30 15 33 12 135 85 210 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 100 712 3 17 617 32 16 35 13 144 90 223 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 302 886 4 243 737 38 67 130 36 220 119 601 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1818 94 40 433 121 499 397 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 100 0 715 17 0 649 64 0 0 234 0 223 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1913 594 0 0 896 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.5 0.0 25.8 0.4 0.0 25.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.5 0.0 25.8 0.4 0.0 25.2 22.8 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 8.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.25 0.20 0.62 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 302 0 890 243 0 775 233 0 0 339 0 601 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.80 0.07 0.00 0.84 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 361 0 1141 391 0 1114 238 0 0 345 0 607 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 16.1 0.0 19.3 16.3 0.0 22.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 18.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.9 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 4.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.0 0.0 11.7 0.2 0.0 11.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.0 0.0 23.1 16.5 0.0 26.8 23.5 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.0 19.2 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 815 666 64 457 Approach Delay,s/veh 22.4 26.5 23.5 26.5 Approach LOS f C f C C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 43.5 30.8 12.3 39.4 30.8 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 9.0 48.0 25.0 9.0 48.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 27.8 24.8 4.5 27.2 24.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.1 6.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office No-Build 2031 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 138 601 10 5 465 86 12 52 1 50 24 120 Future Volume(veh/h) 138 601 10 5 465 86 12 52 1 50 24 120 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 160 699 12 6 541 100 14 60 1 58 28 140 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 416 977 17 326 685 127 93 256 4 244 101 414 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.55 0.55 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1507 279 161 1624 24 941 637 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 160 0 711 6 0 641 75 0 0 86 0 140 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1786 1809 0 0 1578 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.6 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.6 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 19.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.67 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 416 0 994 326 0 812 353 0 0 344 0 414 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.72 0.02 0.00 0.79 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 624 0 1546 705 0 1521 733 0 0 675 0 762 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 10.4 0.0 10.7 10.3 0.0 14.7 23.4 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 19.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 0.9 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 7.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.2 0.0 12.1 10.4 0.0 17.2 23.8 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 19.7 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 871 647 75 226 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.9 17.1 23.8 21.4 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 40.7 16.0 12.6 34.8 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 4.2 4.6 21.4 6.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.4 0.4 7.5 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office No-Build 2031 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 138 601 10 5 465 86 12 52 1 50 24 120 Future Volume(veh/h) 138 601 10 5 465 86 12 52 1 50 24 120 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 160 699 12 6 541 100 14 60 1 58 28 140 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 416 977 17 326 685 127 93 256 4 244 101 414 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.55 0.55 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1507 279 161 1624 24 941 637 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 160 0 711 6 0 641 75 0 0 86 0 140 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1786 1809 0 0 1578 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.6 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.6 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 19.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.16 0.19 0.01 0.67 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 416 0 994 326 0 812 353 0 0 344 0 414 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.72 0.02 0.00 0.79 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 624 0 1546 705 0 1521 733 0 0 675 0 762 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 10.4 0.0 10.7 10.3 0.0 14.7 23.4 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 19.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 1.5 0.0 10.5 0.1 0.0 11.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.2 0.0 12.1 10.4 0.0 17.2 23.8 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 19.7 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 871 647 75 226 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.9 17.1 23.8 21.4 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 40.7 16.0 12.6 34.8 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 4.2 4.6 21.4 6.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.4 0.4 7.5 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Phasea 2AAM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 207 601 10 5 465 116 12 81 1 61 31 136 Future Volume(veh/h) 207 601 10 5 465 116 12 81 1 61 31 136 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 241 699 12 6 541 135 14 94 1 71 36 158 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 408 1012 17 345 672 168 78 257 3 232 101 404 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1418 354 115 1699 17 936 666 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 241 0 711 6 0 676 109 0 0 107 0 158 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1772 1831 0 0 1602 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.1 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.1 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.66 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 408 0 1030 345 0 840 338 0 0 332 0 404 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.80 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 598 0 1476 706 0 1440 709 0 0 641 0 735 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 0.0 10.2 10.0 0.0 14.9 25.4 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 20.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 8.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 0.0 11.4 10.0 0.0 17.5 26.2 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 21.4 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C A C Approach Vol,veh/h 952 682 109 265 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.1 17.4 26.2 23.3 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 43.7 16.0 12.9 37.5 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 5.4 6.1 23.6 7.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.7 7.9 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.1 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MDN 01/05/2022 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Phasea 2AAM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 207 601 10 5 465 116 12 81 1 61 31 136 Future Volume(veh/h) 207 601 10 5 465 116 12 81 1 61 31 136 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 241 699 12 6 541 135 14 94 1 71 36 158 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 408 1012 17 345 672 168 78 257 3 232 101 404 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1418 354 115 1699 17 936 666 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 241 0 711 6 0 676 109 0 0 107 0 158 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1772 1831 0 0 1602 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.1 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.1 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.66 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 408 0 1030 345 0 840 338 0 0 332 0 404 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.80 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 598 0 1476 706 0 1440 709 0 0 641 0 735 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 0.0 10.2 10.0 0.0 14.9 25.4 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 20.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 2.7 0.0 10.4 0.1 0.0 12.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 0.0 11.4 10.0 0.0 17.5 26.2 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 21.4 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C A C Approach Vol,veh/h 952 682 109 265 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.1 17.4 26.2 23.3 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 43.7 16.0 12.9 37.5 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 5.4 6.1 23.6 7.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.7 7.9 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.1 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MDN 01/19/2022 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Future Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 253 699 12 6 541 141 14 100 1 73 37 160 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 406 1018 17 347 670 175 77 256 2 230 100 402 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1404 366 109 1708 16 939 667 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 253 0 711 6 0 682 115 0 0 110 0 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1770 1833 0 0 1606 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.66 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 0 1035 347 0 845 336 0 0 331 0 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.81 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 594 0 1465 706 0 1428 705 0 0 636 0 731 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0.0 10.2 9.9 0.0 14.9 25.7 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 20.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 8.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 0.0 11.3 10.0 0.0 17.5 26.6 0.0 0.0 26.5 0.0 21.6 LnGrp LOS B A B A A B C A A C A C Approach Vol,veh/h 964 688 115 270 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 17.5 26.6 23.6 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 44.1 16.0 12.9 37.9 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 5.7 6.3 23.9 7.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.7 8.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Future Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 253 699 12 6 541 141 14 100 1 73 37 160 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 406 1018 17 347 670 175 77 256 2 230 100 402 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1404 366 109 1708 16 939 667 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 253 0 711 6 0 682 115 0 0 110 0 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1770 1833 0 0 1606 0 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.66 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 0 1035 347 0 845 336 0 0 331 0 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.81 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 594 0 1465 706 0 1428 705 0 0 636 0 731 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0.0 10.2 9.9 0.0 14.9 25.7 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 20.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 3.0 0.0 10.4 0.1 0.0 12.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 0.0 11.3 10.0 0.0 17.5 26.6 0.0 0.0 26.5 0.0 21.6 LnGrp LOS B A B A A B C A A C A C Approach Vol,veh/h 964 688 115 270 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 17.5 26.6 23.6 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 44.1 16.0 12.9 37.9 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 5.7 6.3 23.9 7.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.7 8.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � "� � "� � � � � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Future Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 253 699 12 6 541 141 14 100 1 73 37 160 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 406 1018 17 347 670 175 77 256 2 328 285 402 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1404 366 109 1708 16 1291 1900 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 253 0 711 6 0 682 115 0 0 73 37 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1770 1833 0 0 1291 1900 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 0 1035 347 0 845 336 0 0 328 285 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.81 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.13 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 594 0 1465 706 0 1428 705 0 0 597 681 731 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0.0 10.2 9.9 0.0 14.9 25.7 0.0 0.0 25.2 24.7 20.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 8.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 0.0 11.3 10.0 0.0 17.5 26.6 0.0 0.0 25.7 24.9 21.6 LnGrp LOS B A B A A B C A A C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 964 688 115 270 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 17.5 26.6 23.2 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 44.1 16.0 12.9 37.9 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 5.7 6.3 23.9 7.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.7 8.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 AM Peak � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � "� � "� � � � � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Future Volume(veh/h) 218 601 10 5 465 121 12 86 1 63 32 138 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1822 1976 1900 1837 1945 1900 1900 1900 1870 1900 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 253 699 12 6 541 141 14 100 1 73 37 160 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 10 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 Cap,veh/h 406 1018 17 347 670 175 77 256 2 328 285 402 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1786 31 1810 1404 366 109 1708 16 1291 1900 1580 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 253 0 711 6 0 682 115 0 0 73 37 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1816 1810 0 1770 1833 0 0 1291 1900 1580 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.3 0.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 21.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.21 0.12 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 0 1035 347 0 845 336 0 0 328 285 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.69 0.02 0.00 0.81 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.13 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 594 0 1465 706 0 1428 705 0 0 597 681 731 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0.0 10.2 9.9 0.0 14.9 25.7 0.0 0.0 25.2 24.7 20.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 3.0 0.0 10.4 0.1 0.0 12.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 0.0 11.3 10.0 0.0 17.5 26.6 0.0 0.0 25.7 24.9 21.6 LnGrp LOS B A B A A B C A A C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 964 688 115 270 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 17.5 26.6 23.2 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 44.1 16.0 12.9 37.9 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.1 20.5 5.7 6.3 23.9 7.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.6 0.7 0.7 8.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office No-Build 2031 PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 75 678 3 16 587 22 15 25 13 95 61 154 Future Volume(veh/h) 75 678 3 16 587 22 15 25 13 95 61 154 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 721 3 17 624 23 16 27 14 101 65 164 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 400 978 4 328 821 30 112 153 61 249 123 406 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1849 68 204 913 364 904 733 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 80 0 724 17 0 647 57 0 0 166 0 164 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1917 1481 0 0 1637 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.3 0.0 17.4 0.3 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.3 0.0 17.4 0.3 0.0 16.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.28 0.25 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 400 0 982 328 0 851 326 0 0 372 0 406 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.74 0.05 0.00 0.76 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 666 0 1777 701 0 1739 693 0 0 737 0 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 0.0 11.7 10.0 0.0 13.9 21.3 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 18.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 0.4 0.0 6.6 0.1 0.0 6.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.9 0.0 13.3 10.1 0.0 15.9 21.7 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 19.4 LnGrp LOS A A B B A B C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 804 664 57 330 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.0 15.8 21.7 21.7 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.7 35.8 16.0 11.1 32.4 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 19.4 7.4 3.3 18.9 7.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.8 0.3 0.2 7.6 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office No-Build 2031 PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 75 678 3 16 587 22 15 25 13 95 61 154 Future Volume(veh/h) 75 678 3 16 587 22 15 25 13 95 61 154 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 721 3 17 624 23 16 27 14 101 65 164 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 400 978 4 328 821 30 112 153 61 249 123 406 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1849 68 204 913 364 904 733 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 80 0 724 17 0 647 57 0 0 166 0 164 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1917 1481 0 0 1637 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.3 0.0 17.4 0.3 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.3 0.0 17.4 0.3 0.0 16.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.28 0.25 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 400 0 982 328 0 851 326 0 0 372 0 406 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.74 0.05 0.00 0.76 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 666 0 1777 701 0 1739 693 0 0 737 0 782 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 0.0 11.7 10.0 0.0 13.9 21.3 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 18.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 0.8 0.0 10.8 0.2 0.0 10.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.9 0.0 13.3 10.1 0.0 15.9 21.7 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 19.4 LnGrp LOS A A B B A B C A A C A B Approach Vol,veh/h 804 664 57 330 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.0 15.8 21.7 21.7 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.7 35.8 16.0 11.1 32.4 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 19.4 7.4 3.3 18.9 7.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.8 0.3 0.2 7.6 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372, Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Phasae 2A PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 98 678 3 16 587 32 15 35 13 144 90 223 Future Volume(veh/h) 98 678 3 16 587 32 15 35 13 144 90 223 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 104 721 3 17 624 34 16 37 14 153 96 237 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 309 909 4 250 755 41 54 107 28 200 98 585 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.47 0.47 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1813 99 0 370 98 450 340 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 104 0 724 17 0 658 67 0 0 249 0 237 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1912 468 0 0 789 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.6 0.0 25.9 0.4 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.6 0.0 25.9 0.4 0.0 25.4 24.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.24 0.21 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 309 0 913 250 0 796 189 0 0 299 0 585 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.00 0.79 0.07 0.00 0.83 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 473 0 1277 506 0 1246 189 0 0 299 0 585 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 15.8 0.0 18.8 15.9 0.0 21.5 23.6 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 19.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.9 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 3.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.0 0.0 11.5 0.2 0.0 11.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.7 0.0 21.7 16.1 0.0 25.1 25.2 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 20.2 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A D A C Approach Vol,veh/h 828 675 67 486 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.1 24.9 25.2 34.7 Approach LOS f C f C C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 44.6 30.0 12.4 40.5 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 27.9 26.0 4.6 27.4 26.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.2 7.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.7 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MDN 01/05/2022 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Phase 2A PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 98 678 3 16 587 32 15 35 13 144 90 223 Future Volume(veh/h) 98 678 3 16 587 32 15 35 13 144 90 223 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 104 721 3 17 624 34 16 37 14 153 96 237 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 273 858 4 215 711 39 52 105 28 207 109 638 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1813 99 0 323 85 429 336 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 104 0 724 17 0 658 67 0 0 249 0 237 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1912 409 0 0 765 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.8 0.0 28.3 0.5 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.8 0.0 28.3 0.5 0.0 27.5 28.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.24 0.21 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 861 215 0 750 185 0 0 316 0 638 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.84 0.08 0.00 0.88 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 326 0 909 355 0 887 185 0 0 316 0 638 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 18.1 0.0 21.5 18.2 0.0 24.3 23.2 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 18.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.2 0.0 7.2 0.2 0.0 9.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.2 0.0 13.8 0.2 0.0 13.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.3 0.0 28.7 18.4 0.0 33.7 24.9 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 18.8 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A D A B Approach Vol,veh/h 828 675 67 486 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.5 33.3 24.9 30.5 Approach LOS f C f C C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 43.9 34.0 12.4 39.8 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 9.0 40.0 28.0 9.0 40.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.5 30.3 30.0 4.8 29.5 30.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.0 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MDN 01/05/2022 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Future Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 721 3 17 624 35 16 39 14 162 102 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 309 911 4 250 755 42 53 112 28 199 92 585 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.47 0.47 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1810 102 0 386 98 446 319 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 0 724 17 0 659 69 0 0 264 0 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1911 485 0 0 765 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.7 0.0 26.0 0.4 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.7 0.0 26.0 0.4 0.0 25.5 24.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.23 0.20 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 309 0 914 250 0 797 194 0 0 291 0 585 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.79 0.07 0.00 0.83 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 472 0 1274 506 0 1243 194 0 0 291 0 585 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 15.8 0.0 18.7 15.9 0.0 21.5 23.7 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 19.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.9 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 3.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.1 0.0 11.5 0.2 0.0 11.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 0.0 21.6 16.0 0.0 25.1 25.3 0.0 0.0 61.5 0.0 20.4 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A E A C Approach Vol,veh/h 831 676 69 513 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.0 24.9 25.3 41.6 Approach LOS f C f C C � D � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 44.7 30.0 12.4 40.6 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.0 54.0 24.0 14.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 28.0 26.0 4.7 27.5 26.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.2 7.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.5 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Signal improvement PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Future Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 721 3 17 624 35 16 39 14 162 102 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 273 859 4 216 711 40 51 109 28 205 102 637 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1810 102 0 337 86 425 316 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 0 724 17 0 659 69 0 0 264 0 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1911 423 0 0 741 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.9 0.0 28.3 0.5 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 0.0 28.3 0.5 0.0 27.6 28.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 9.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.23 0.20 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 863 216 0 750 188 0 0 307 0 637 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.00 0.84 0.08 0.00 0.88 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 326 0 907 355 0 885 188 0 0 307 0 637 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 18.1 0.0 21.5 18.2 0.0 24.3 23.2 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 18.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.3 0.0 7.1 0.2 0.0 9.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 1.2 0.0 13.8 0.2 0.0 13.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.4 0.0 28.6 18.4 0.0 33.8 24.9 0.0 0.0 51.4 0.0 19.0 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A D A B Approach Vol,veh/h 831 676 69 513 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.4 33.4 24.9 35.7 Approach LOS f C f C C � D � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 44.0 34.0 12.5 39.9 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 9.0 40.0 28.0 9.0 40.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.5 30.3 30.0 4.9 29.6 30.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR �ane Configurations � � � � � �' � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Future Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 721 3 17 624 35 16 39 14 162 102 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 273 859 4 216 711 40 51 109 28 205 102 637 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1810 102 0 337 86 425 316 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 0 724 17 0 659 69 0 0 264 0 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1911 423 0 0 741 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.9 0.0 28.3 0.5 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 0.0 28.3 0.5 0.0 27.6 28.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 9.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.23 0.20 0.61 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 863 216 0 750 188 0 0 307 0 637 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.00 0.84 0.08 0.00 0.88 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 326 0 907 355 0 885 188 0 0 307 0 637 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 18.1 0.0 21.5 18.2 0.0 24.3 23.2 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 18.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.3 0.0 7.1 0.2 0.0 9.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 2.2 0.0 19.9 0.4 0.0 19.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.4 0.0 28.6 18.4 0.0 33.8 24.9 0.0 0.0 51.4 0.0 19.0 LnGrp LOS B A C B A C C A A D A B Approach Vol,veh/h 831 676 69 513 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.4 33.4 24.9 35.7 Approach LOS f C f C C � D � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.3 44.0 34.0 12.5 39.9 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 9.0 40.0 28.0 9.0 40.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.5 30.3 30.0 4.9 29.6 30.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3 HCM 6th LOS C Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Geometric improvement PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � "� � "� � � � � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Future Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 721 3 17 624 35 16 39 14 162 102 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 372 957 4 305 772 43 111 228 69 404 387 473 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1810 102 211 1118 338 1373 1900 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 0 724 17 0 659 69 0 0 162 102 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1911 1667 0 0 1373 1900 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.0 0.0 19.4 0.3 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.9 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.0 0.0 19.4 0.3 0.0 19.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.9 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.23 0.20 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 372 0 961 305 0 815 408 0 0 404 387 473 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.81 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.26 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 455 0 1209 504 0 1179 762 0 0 717 820 837 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 11.4 0.0 13.4 11.6 0.0 16.3 21.4 0.0 0.0 22.8 21.7 19.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/in 0.7 0.0 7.9 0.1 0.0 8.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.3 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 0.0 15.9 11.7 0.0 19.8 21.6 0.0 0.0 23.8 22.2 20.3 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 831 676 69 513 Approach Delay,s/veh 15.4 19.6 21.6 21.8 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.8 37.8 19.2 12.0 33.7 19.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 9.0 40.0 28.0 9.0 40.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 21.4 4.0 4.0 21.6 10.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 6.9 0.4 0.1 6.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Myrtle St & Church Street 120-372; Morgan St. Office Build 2031 -Geometric improvement PM Peak Hour � � � � � � � I � � i � Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations � "� � "� � � � � Traffic Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Future Volume(veh/h) 101 678 3 16 587 33 15 37 13 152 96 234 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1961 1976 1900 1930 1976 1900 1900 1648 1900 1900 1885 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 721 3 17 624 35 16 39 14 162 102 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 Cap,veh/h 372 957 4 305 772 43 111 228 69 404 387 473 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1951 8 1810 1810 102 211 1118 338 1373 1900 1598 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 0 724 17 0 659 69 0 0 162 102 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1959 1810 0 1911 1667 0 0 1373 1900 1598 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.0 0.0 19.4 0.3 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.9 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.0 0.0 19.4 0.3 0.0 19.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.9 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.23 0.20 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 372 0 961 305 0 815 408 0 0 404 387 473 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.81 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.26 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 455 0 1209 504 0 1179 762 0 0 717 820 837 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 11.4 0.0 13.4 11.6 0.0 16.3 21.4 0.0 0.0 22.8 21.7 19.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/in 1.3 0.0 12.5 0.2 0.0 13.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.9 2.3 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 0.0 15.9 11.7 0.0 19.8 21.6 0.0 0.0 23.8 22.2 20.3 LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 831 676 69 513 Approach Delay,s/veh 15.4 19.6 21.6 21.8 Approach LOS f B f B C � C � Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.8 37.8 19.2 12.0 33.7 19.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 9.0 40.0 28.0 9.0 40.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 21.4 4.0 4.0 21.6 10.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 6.9 0.4 0.1 6.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5 HCM 6th LOS B Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP Synchro 11 Report MPF 12/16/2021 Page 1 Attachment B City of Boulder Pedestrian C ross i n Treatme nt g � -� . � Installation Guidelines y y, ,�,"� s '',�,`,�_ . � ^4�,� �' ��'- •,� . �.�'� '�,• �� '��` � "` � f�'�" November 2011 �j.��,= �,`�� :� �'. , , � k : � 3�t �',�'�'.' . _ - . .e ' . . �F-.. �. .�:� • i: K :, "-_ � � � , _ �� n,'�C _,.. _. � .. �..... -: .. �-'� A,�s -I�- �. . a : .. J .J .. , _ �-.__' . 9•._, : ` ,. .�_��, �`� ''�.� _ STATE LAW '� _."F �o- �-- �901 -�-.�'� -: � - ��r_- : � - ;:" . ... �- . q,.�..,- ,. .. _ . ,. .. � ' " .'� , _ - . �- *� � �j .�� __".�..��° � —.. r... � s . _c�� .. 31"• *^ �� ---' 3 , � 4 '.� s� a i ., ..� ;/►��r`,'�.r�, �+_.� �;'� . ,* ` �'"�'�-�. �z� �i . F �� . �� -�=-� ;..�.�-;�.,�� , � , r � � , _- .� .,��, � , I ' .{F�� 1� J .�, � � � .� �'�� ti b 6� � LL;-� � i4 ,j ! -�� -F y;�#�� , i S F '� .�-�4 �� - ��. � ��_�. ��+ t�n r�""'��,,.,__'�� f� � '__.—r��'��' � '» 7� ,�; r�' - :� �/ � . � y . TA �1^` 1 .c_„Y„_�� 9 / i�'S� . '�Y ,t_?- -'�.Ii��//�� .T',�, p -. ��.."+ '_,1 J r s _6 �,�{' �� . . �r. �� £ � ''� � -��, f �� . _Y C�•��VI� : 4 � , • �. _ �� ` r'�� '�4Q .. .�,�,' _`�l,r �-- r��i�" '+� - f •?�� i.,� `y� �� _ �'� � . � r��-, ��i�r�� J �1 �,�,> :�",::;, � — ',�'i ,' a � , �� — 6 — ,��,,� � ,� �� T�� y r"i — l ��-i�'�� # �t,y��-�.. - � Id,�'j��"�,1 +�i - 1�,��►� , �;��p;'�, �;; �. �. {;�r�; r; - .� �,� �t��. � �a� �� 45. ,� ;� i jF A �.. y ,� ? �� y�;F��, SiAiE lAW t-; . � � �' "tu.� ,+�S ^ . - _ . . . . . ��,' jLL•�� n � � � .'��$,;v� q,. . `�Lq � 1 � y�� Y �.�� .�� .sl��'+�e,�" y ��,e� .� ,� d . � rdP � �_ T � JI'I{�� _`� - - �� - �j�•l�l �� s13� '�1' � y-=�... — -"'f' — _ _ `� -s� E�y„ ��. _ � n . . ^�� - � �� . . .- _� � � - � j-+;!r..;�. _ . _ _ _ �� - .fi�P�"• ,�r , _ � __ _ �� -�s � . _ �.� �., �' � � 1�� _ _ _ 4y� - � � _'. .. Y � �� J � _ �� r��t�r� ,�� , �r � � � - „_ _— t .- i. . �� Prepared for: " - ��a�� -;� City of Boulder Transportation Division t... � ..r�� -= P.O. Box 791 �_�__ � �� Boulder, Colorado 80306 - � - � i� v.:�-��' _� -.. e..�� l�~y _ • �' � �7�. r/` �" ,�� .�y"�.':, .� �h . � � FOX � � � e " ,� � � � �. For More Information, please contact: City of Boulder—Transportation Division P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 441-3266 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................iii 1.0 DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................................5 2.0 CROSSING LOCATION EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS..............4 2.1 Evaluation Steps.................................................................................................................4 2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations..................................................................................7 2.2.1 Types of Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations .............................................7 2.2.2 Minimum Vehicle Volume For Treatments.....................................................................8 2.2.3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume for Treatments at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations ........8 2.2.4 Definition of a Pedestrian Median Refuge and Minimum Median Refuge Width............9 2.2.5 Distance to Nearest Marked or Protected Crossing..................................................... 10 2.2.6 Conditions That May Limit the Use of RRFBs at Pedestrian Crossings....................... 10 2.2.7 Selecting Between a Pedestrian Traffic Signal, HAWK Beacon, or RRFBs................. 11 2.2.8 Signal Progression and Traffic Operational Considerations ........................................ 11 2.2.9 Differential Vehicle Queue Lengths and Pedestrian Safety ......................................... 12 2.2.10 Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation................................................................. 12 2.2.11 Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Higher Speed Roadways with Rural Character... 13 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Crosswalk Lighting............................................................................................................ 19 3.2 Avoiding Overuse of Crossing Treatments ....................................................................... 19 3.3 Multi-Use Path Crossings ................................................................................................. 19 3.4 Textured and Colored Pavement Treatments................................................................... 19 3.5 Accessible Crosswalks .....................................................................................................20 3.6 Raised Crossings at Right-Turn Bypass Islands...............................................................20 3.7 Removal of Treatments.....................................................................................................20 4.0 NEXT STEPS........................................................................................................................21 Appendix City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page i LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet..................................................................................14 Figure 1 — Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart ...............................................................16 Table 1 —Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ......................................17 Figure 2a - City of Boulder Guidelines for the Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid (HAWK) Beacons, Pedestrian Signals, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Signs on Low-Speed Roadways ..................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2b - City of Boulder Guidelines for the Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid (HAWK) Beacons, Pedestrian Signals, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Signs on High- SpeedRoadways.......................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A1. Background A1.1 Standards and Policies A1.2 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements A1.3 Evaluation of Demonstration Devices Used in the City of Boulder Bibliography City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page ii Executive Summary Providing safe and efficient pedestrian facilities is a long-established goal of the City of Boulder. Pedestrian facilities are of particular importance as we try to reduce our dependency on the automobile. The decision to travel as a pedestrian is in part subject to the pedestrian's ability and perceived ability to safely and efficiently cross roadways along the travel route. With this in mind, the City of Boulder has established this document to provide a set of criteria, procedures, and policies to guide the installation of crossing treatments. This document, intended to replace the Citv of Boulder Pedestrian Crossinq Treatment Warrants implemented in 1996, incorporates data collected both for the previous document and recently collected for this effort. Specifically, this document summarizes: ■ Proposed pedestrian crossing criteria and procedures for evaluating the need for crossing treatments, including a "flowchart" approach ■ Specific pedestrian crossing treatments that may be applicable for a particular set of pedestrian volumes, pedestrian types, vehicular volumes, vehicular speeds, and roadway geometry. When Boulder's original Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Warrants were developed in 1996, there were relatively few studies available at the federal, state, and municipal levels with respect to the installation of crosswalks and other crossing treatments. Over the past few years more studies have been published which assist in the formulation of specific local policies. However, national standards still provide little guidance for the installation of marked crosswalks and treatments, particularly at mid-block locations. Crosswalks and other crossing treatments are typically installed based on engineering judgment. Key issues, such as the circumstances in which a crosswalk should be installed, how much safety benefit crosswalks provide, and the application of various crossing enhancements are still commonly debated topics. Information recently published by the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) (Zegeer et al)' suggests that on two-lane roadways, marked crosswalks alone at uncontrolled locations have no effect on pedestrian accident rates. The FHWA study goes on to suggest that, on higher volume, multi-lane roadways, marked crosswalks alone (without any other treatments) are associated with higher vehicle-pedestrian accidents rates compared to unmarked locations. Over the past fourteen years, the City of Boulder has undertaken an extensive evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of various treatments being tested at crossing locations in the City. The City has installed demonstration devices at nearly 40 locations including two-lane and multi- lane crossings. These treatments have included enhanced crosswalk signing, pedestrian- actuated flashing signs, raised crossings on right-turn bypass islands, and other devices. This evaluation has shown that while these devices most often result in a significant increase in driver compliance (yielding to crossing pedestrians) at crosswalks, some of these devices may lead to higher vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian accidents at multi-lane, high pedestrian/vehicle volume locations. The results of the data collection to date have been incorporated into these guidelines, though the City of Boulder will continue to evaluate these and other treatments and may make changes to the guidelines over time. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page iii The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines are intended to provide a consistent procedure for considering the installation of crossing treatments where needed on a case-by- case basis in the City of Boulder. Implementation of crossing treatments will require funds that could potentially have been spent on other transportation system improvements, and, therefore, must be considered carefully in the funding allocation process. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page iv 1.0 DEFINITIONS This section includes the definitions of some of the common technical terms used in this document. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The amount of vehicular traffic that crosses an imaginary line across a roadway in a 24-hour period. ADT information typically includes both directions of vehicle travel (if on a two-way street). Controlled Pedestrian Crossing A pedestrian crossing where motorists are required to stop by either a stop sign or traffic signal (including a HAWK beacon) Crosswalk Lighting Street lighting applied at a pedestrian crossing to help approaching motorists see a crossing pedestrian. Crosswalk lighting is at a "vehicular scale" like normal street lighting rather than a "pedestrian scale" that is often used along a sidewalk. Curb Extensions A roadway edge treatment where a curbline is bulged out toward the middle of the roadway to narrow the width of the street. Curb extensions are sometimes call "neckdowns", and are often used at the location of a pedestrian crosswalk to minimize the distance and time that a crossing pedestrian must be in the roadway. Differential Vehicle Queuing See also Vehicle Queue. A condition on a roadway with two or more travel lanes in a single direction where the line of stopped traffic in one travel lane is significantly longer than the line of stopped traffic in the adjacent travel lane. Differential vehicle queuing across a pedestrian crosswalk can cause a significant safety concern as it increased the potential for "multiple threat" pedestrian accidents. Gap in Traffic A gap in traffic is the space between vehicles approaching the pedestrian crossing. Gaps are typically measured in seconds, not distance, as it is the length of the gap in time that a pedestrian must be able to cross in. A directional gap is the gap between vehicles approaching in a single direction. A directional gap can be measured between vehicles in a single lane, or between vehicles approaching in the same direction but in different lanes on a multi-lane approach. If there is no median refuge at the crossing, a pedestrian will need to find an acceptable gap in traffic approaching from two directions at once. This is much more challenging than finding a gap in each approach direction separately. HAWK Beacon A pedestrian hybrid beacon is a relatively new type of crossing treatment used to both warn and control traffic at a pedestrian crossing. It actuated by a pedestrian push button, and uses a combination of circular yellow and red traffic signal displays to first warn motorists of a City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page v pedestrian that is about to cross the street, then require the motorist to stop for the pedestrian crossing, and then release the motorist to proceed once the pedestrian has cleared the crossing. The Beacon is a hybrid between a pedestrian traffic signal and a stop sign. Lane A portion of the roadway surface designated for motor vehicle travel, typically in a single directions, that is delineated by pavement marking stripes. Types of lanes include: "through lanes" for travel along the length of the roadway, often through intersections; "turn lanes" which are typically on intersection approaches and provide space for left or right turning motorists; "bike lanes" which are designated for bicycle travel in the same direction as the automobile travel, are typically narrower than vehicle lanes, and are usually located along the outside edges of the roadway. Marked Crosswalk A pedestrian crossing that is delineated by white crosswalk pavement markings. Marked crosswalks typically also are delineated by a variety of traffic signs. Marked crosswalks would also have curb ramps if there is curb and gutter in an area. Median Refuge An area in the middle of a roadway where a crossing pedestrian can take shelter from approaching traffic in either direction. In the context of these guidelines, the median refuge must include a raised median of some width (see Section 2.2.4 for a description of types of median refuges). A median refuge allows a pedestrian to cross each direction of approaching traffic in a separate step. By using the refuge, the pedestrian must only find an acceptable gap in traffic for one approach direction at a time. Minimum Pedestrian Volume Threshold The minimum amount of pedestrian crossing traffic (typically in a one hour period) that must be present to "warrant" the installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment. See Section 2.2.3. Motorist Compliance Data Observations made and recorded at a pedestrian crossing where it is determined if the approaching motorist complied with their legal requirement to yield to a crossing pedestrian who is in or about to enter the crosswalk. Multiple Threat Accidents A type of pedestrian accident that occurs on a roadway with two or more lanes in the same direction. A motorist that stops for a crossing pedestrian can obscure the view of the pedestrian from another motorist approaching in the adjacent travel lane. If the second motorist does not slow down it creates the potential for a crossing pedestrian to step out in front of a high speed approach vehicle with potentially dire consequences. Multi-Use Path Crossing A location where a sidewalk designated as a multi-use path intersects a roadway at-grade, and the path extends on both sides of the roadway. Neckdowns See Curb Extensions City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 2 Pedestrian Traffic Signal A conventional traffic signal with circular red, yellow, and green displays for motorists and Walk/Don't Walk signals for pedestrians that is applied at a pedestrian crossing. Typically a pedestrian signal would be applied in a mid-block location since it would be considered a normal intersection related traffic signal if it were to be applied at an intersection. Raised Median An area in the middle of a roadway, commonly separating vehicles traveling in opposite directions, that is surrounded by curb and gutter and is physically raised above the surrounding pavement where vehicles travel. Raised medians often contain landscaped areas. See also Median Refuge. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) RRFBs are small rectangular yellow flashing lights that are deployed with pedestrian crossing warning signs. They are typically actuated by a pedestrian push button and flash for a predetermined amount of time, to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway, before going dark. RRFBs are warning devices and do not themselves create a legal requirement for a vehicle to stop when they are flashing. Boulder's pedestrian actuated flashing signs are an example of RRFBs. School Crossing School Crossing defined as a crossing location where ten or more student pedestrians per hour are crossing Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing An established pedestrian crossing that does not include a traffic signal, a HAWK beacon, or a stop sign that requires motor vehicles to stop before entering the crosswalk. For example, Boulder's crosswalks with signs and/or pedestrian actuated flashing yellow lights are considered "uncontrolled". Vehicle Queue A line of stopped vehicles in a single travel lane, commonly caused by traffic control at an intersection. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 3 2.0 CROSSING LOCATION EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 Evaluation Steps Evaluation of an individual crossing location for potential crossing treatments in the City of Boulder should include the following four basic steps: Step 1: Identification and Description of Crossing Location Step 2: Physical Data Collection Step 3: Traffic Data Collection and Operational Observations Step 4: Apply Data to Figure 1, Table 1, and Figure 2 to Determine Appropriate Treatments The Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet is included on the following page which will guide staff through these steps. A detailed discussion of each of these procedures is provided in the following text. Step 1: Identification and Description of Crossing Location a) Identify the pedestrian crossing location including the major street and specific location of the crossing (i.e.: cross-street, street address, intersection path or trail, etc.). b) Determine if the crossing location connects both ends of a multi-use path. If it does, the minimum pedestrian volume requirements are not required to be met to apply the treatments prescribed in Table 1 (see the policy discussion in Section 2.4 for more information). c) Note the posted speed along the major street at the crossing location. d) Identify the existing traffic control (if any) and any existing crossing treatments (signs, markings, or physical treatments), street lighting, and curb ramps. Step 2: Physical Data Collection a) Determine the existing roadway configuration including the number of lanes and the presence of painted or raised medians at the crossing location. b) Identify the nearest marked or protected crossing and measure the distance to this crossing. c) Measure the stopping sight distance (SSD) on all vehicular approaches to the crossing. If the SSD is less than eight times (8x) the posted speed limit (in feet), determine if City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 4 improvements (such as removal of obstructions) and/or lowering of the posted speed limit are feasible means to mitigate the inadequate SSD. Step 3: Traffic Data Collection and Operational Observations a) Gather or collect pedestrian crossing volumes during the peak hours of use. This will typically involve AM, mid-day, and PM peak hours. Locations near schools may only require two hours of data collection (AM and PM peak hours corresponding to school opening and closing times). All pedestrian volumes should include and differentiate between pedestrians and bicyclists and should note separately the number of young, elderly, and/or disabled pedestrians. For locations where school crossing traffic is anticipated, the volume of student pedestrians (school age pedestrians on their way to/from school) should also be separately noted. Whenever possible, pedestrian and bicycle volumes should be collected during warm- weather months (May through September) and during fair weather conditions to represent peak crossing activity (i.e.: no snow, rain, or high winds). Counts should be scheduled to coincide with events such as "walking Wednesdays" if appropriate, and at a time when nearby businesses are open. If school traffic is an issue, the counts should be scheduled on school days when classes are in session. Given the potential fluctuation in pedestrian traffic from day to day, it may be necessary to collect up to three days of data (use additional Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheets as needed) to determine if an enhanced pedestrian crossing treatment is warranted as follows: • Collect pedestrian data on day one. If the minimum pedestrian volume threshold (see Figure 1) is exceeded, no further pedestrian data collection is needed. If the threshold has not been exceeded, but at least 50% of the minimum pedestrian volume was observed, proceed to a second day of data collection. • Collect pedestrian data on day two. If the minimum pedestrian volume threshold is exceeded, no further pedestrian data collection is needed. If the threshold has not been met but again the volume is at least 50% of the minimum threshold, proceed to a third day of data collection. • Collect pedestrian data on day three. If the minimum pedestrian volume still has not been met, then no marked pedestrian crossing treatment is warranted by pedestrian crossing volume. b) Gather or collect hourly and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for automobile traffic along the major roadway at the crossing location. A one day sample should be adequate, with hourly volumes collected during the same hour as the pedestrian crossing volumes. [Note: City Staff is currently evaluating the benefit of including vehicle gap and/or pedestrian delay data collection to this step] c) Due to the potential for vehicular traffic queues to impact safety at the crossings, the presence of queues extending from downstream signals or intersections back into the crossing location should be observed, as well as any "differential" queuing that may occur on a lane to lane basis. While collecting automobile traffic data, the formation of City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 5 vehicle queues from adjacent intersections should be noted. If one or both directional queues reaches back to the crossing location, the number of times per hour that it reaches the crossing location should be noted and the maximum queue length should also be recorded. If there is more than one through lane in each direction, it should be noted if the queues reaching back to the crossing are approximately the same length in each lane, or is there a significant differences in the length of the queues in each lane. If the queues are routinely of different length as they extend beyond the crossing location, notes should be made as to the potential cause of the differential queuing. Step 4: Apply Data to Figure 1, Table 1, and Figure 2 to Determine Appropriate Treatments a) Using the available data, utilize Figure 1 —Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart and Table 1 — Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations (if applicable) to determine appropriate treatment(s) for signalized, stop-controlled, or uncontrolled locations. Also consider and incorporate the information in Section 2.2 and in Figure 2 as appropriate. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 6 2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations The following information should be considered by the user of these guidelines when determining the appropriate pedestrian crossing treatment: 2.2.1 Types of Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations (See also Table 1) Table 1 identifies six primary types of uncontrolled crossing treatments for consideration depending on the physical roadway conditions, vehicle volume, pedestrian volume at the potential crossing location, etc. The crossing types are as follows: Crossing Type A: • Marked crosswalk • "State Law — Yield to Pedestrians" signs mounted on the side of the roadway at the crossing, with diagonal down arrow placards (W16-7P) • standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing • If the location is a school crossing then standard S1-1 signs should be used Crossing Type B: • Same as Type A above, plus • "State Law — Yield to Pedestrians — Within Crosswalk" signs (R1-6) mounted on flexible bollards on the centerline (if no median present) or mounted on sign posts in the median, if inedian is present Crossing Type C: • Same as Type B above plus • Add neckdowns (curb extensions) and median refuge island to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase the visibility of pedestrians to approaching motorists Crossing Type D: • Marked crosswalk • Median refuge island [Note: If a median refuge can not be constructed on a 2-way street then go to Crossing Type F] • "State Law — Yield to Pedestrians" signs mounted on the side of the roadway and in the median at the crossing, with diagonal down arrow placards (W16-7P) • Pedestrian actuated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) mounted with the "State Law...." Signs • standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing • If there are 2 approach lanes in a single direction install advance yield lines and "Yield Here To Pedestrians" (R1-5) signs • If the location is a school crossing then standard S1-1 signs should be used • Consider adding curb extensions if on-street parking exists and storm drainage can be accommodated • [Note: If pedestrian volume falls above the RRFB limit line on Figure 2, go to Crossing Type F] City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 7 Crossing Type E: • Where speed limit is initially greater than or equal to 45 miles per hour • Determine if the speed limit can be effectively reduced to 40 mph AND a raised median refuge island can be installed • If so, go to Crossing Type D • If not, go to Crossing Type F Crossing Type F: • Crossing has 3 or more through lanes in a given direction or is otherwise not suitable for an uncontrolled marked crosswalk • Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade-separated pedestrian crossing • Refer to Figure 2 when considering crossing treatment type • Must consider corridor signal progression, grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors In Table 1 there are two columns that list: • # or lanes crossed to reach a refuge • # of"multiple threat" lanes per crossing This information does not directly play in to the use of Table 1, but they do provide important context for the user as they help distinguish the crossing types and support the difference in recommended crossing treatments. These topics are discussed in more detail below. 2.2.2 Minimum Vehicle Volume For Treatments Recognizing the limited availability of resources to implement crossing treatments within the City, crossing treatments should generally not be installed at locations where the ADT is lower than 1,500 vehicles per day. Exceptions may be made at school crossing locations where the peak hour vehicle traffic exceeds 10% of the ADT. School crossings are defined as locations where 10 or more student pedestrians are crossing per hour. Treatments for roadways with greater than 1,500 vehicles per day should be installed based on the criteria in Figure 1, Table 1, and the information in Figure 2 (a or b depending on the speed limit). 2.2.3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume for Treatments at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations The City of Boulder has evaluated crosswalk enhancements at uncontrolled crossing locations over the years and has determined that there is a clear relationship between driver compliance (yielding) and the pedestrian and/or bicycle crossing volume. Data collected at Boulder crosswalks where rectangular rapid flash beacon signs (RRFB) or State Law-Yield signs were installed shows that driver compliance typically increases with higher crossing volumes. It is theorized that the primary reason for this relationship is that drivers tend to ignore enhanced crossing treatments over time at locations where they infrequently see pedestrians crossing. The following graphs illustrate this relationship: City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 8 Ped Valume vs.[amplianee Ped Vatume vs.Campliance 5[udy af 13 Locatrons wlRectanguiat Rapid Flash Beacon Slgns Study of 12 Locatiorvs w/State Law Y�eld S�igning � ' 10.7'� • 'i � '- e 90% ' • t __ ' gq36 * � i� gp'% . !. � . !O'ti � � ♦ � '� � " . '♦ i a • C �6�>�• � � 60% '¢ S4'�6 � ♦ � SOx; f o �a u 4� E aoa 6 3OK u � 3fl% - H!}E I 3�96- 1fM�I� 1M6 .. qva . . . .. . . . . . . � . . , . . , . o �o +a ba ao �a> >zo �ao �no �so :eo o zo 00 6a eo ioo rro iaa �sa i�a zoa Fed Volume[peds�hr� Ped Volume(peds�h�� W�re,age�v,au h��n s�ud;rd! ��vp�aPP fG�FIC hp�i�;59u[�i{d] The above data also illustrates that, below roughly 20 pedestrians per hour, driver compliance decreases significantly. Thus, the base threshold for consideration of an enhanced crossing treatment at an uncontrolled location is 20 pedestrians per hour. This threshold is consistent with recent national guidance and policies adopted by other states and cities, as determined through literature research. The Minimum Pedestrian Volume Thresholds are as follows: - 20 peds per hour* in any one hour, or - 18 peds per hour* in any two hours, or - 15 peds per hour* in any three hours - 10 school aged pedestrians traveling to/from school in any one hour * Young, elderly, and disabled pedestrians count 2x towards volume thresholds ** School Crossing defined as a crossing location where ten or more student pedestrians per hour are crossing 2.2.4 Definition of a Pedestrian Median Refuge and Minimum Median Refuge Width A pedestrian refuge median is a useful tool in increasing the safety and efficiency of a pedestrian crossing, and the presence (or not) of a median refuge will influence the type of pedestrian crossing treatment that can be considered (see Table 1). In this context a pedestrian refuge median is defined as a location in the middle of a pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian can take refuge, thereby separating their crossing into two steps, across each direction of approaching traffic separately. Separating the crossing into two directional crossings greatly increases the number of acceptable gaps for pedestrians to safely cross a roadway. A pedestrian refuge must include some type of raised median as described below: • A painted center median or a painted turn lane can never be considered a pedestrian refuge. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 9 • A raised median nose at an intersection (next to a left turn bay for example) can only be considered a pedestrian refuge for the adjacent crosswalk if the median is at least 4 feet wide AND the left turn volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour. This low left turn volume means that during most pedestrian crossings there will not be a vehicle in the left turn lane and the pedestrian will be "shadowed" by the width of the median and the adjacent turn lane as they cross the street. • A raised median at a mid-block pedestrian crossing can only be considered as a refuge if it is at least 6 feet wide (preferably 8 feet wide) and includes curb ramps or a walkway at grade through the median. A median of this width will allow over two feet on each side for splash protection; it will store a group of pedestrians; and it will accommodate the storage of a bicycle without it overhanging into the traffic lanes. For multi-use path crossing locations, a 10' median refuge width is desirable to better accommodate bicycles with child trailers, recumbent bicycles, and tandem bicycles. 2.2.5 Distance to Nearest Marked or Protected Crossing The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart in Figure 1 includes consideration of spacing criteria for an uncontrolled crossing to the nearest marked or projected crossing. The flowchart requires that a new uncontrolled mid-block crossing be at least 300 feet from the nearest crossing. However, the flowchart allows this spacing criteria to be waived if the proposed crossing serves a multi-use path, or the pedestrian crossing volume exceeds twice the minimum threshold. As with this entire PCTIG, this criteria is also subject to engineering judgment. In urban conditions where Boulder's typical block length is 400 feet, the engineer may want to consider allowing a minimum spacing of 200 feet, provided that the resultant pedestrian crossing: • does not cross any auxiliary lanes (left or right turn lanes or their transitions) where it is anticipated that vehicles will be changing lanes and may be distracted from observing pedestrians in the crosswalk • is not in an intersection influence area where it will create undue restriction to vehicular traffic operations. 2.2.6 Conditions That May Limit the Use of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons at Pedestrian Crossings The City of Boulder has been using pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) at pedestrian crossings on four lane roadways for many years, and these "flashing signs" have greatly increased motorist yielding to pedestrians at these unsignalized crosswalks. However, the City has also learned that the use of RRFBs may not be appropriate in locations where there is a combination of both high traffic volumes and high pedestrian volumes. In these extreme conditions there may be an increase in traffic accidents and/or traffic delay that make City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 10 the use of RRFBs inappropriate. In these cases, the use of conventional pedestrian traffic signals or the HAWK signals may be more appropriate. While the decision not to use RRFBs at a pedestrian crossing should be based on engineering judgment, the limit line in Figure 2 has been prepared to aid in this determination. 2.2.7 Selecting Between a Pedestrian Traffic Signal, HAWK Beacon, or RRFBs Pedestrian traffic signals may be considered for application at high volume pedestrian crossings based on engineering judgment. The MUTCD contains warranting procedures for conventional pedestrian traffic signals based on automobile and vehicle traffic volumes to help determine if a pedestrian signal is appropriate. These signals are typically considered when there are over 130 pedestrians an hour crossing a roadway. Hybrid Beacons (HAWK beacons) may also be considered and the MUTCD contains warranting guidelines that utilize automobile traffic, pedestrian traffic, automobile speeds, and pedestrian crossing distance. HAWK beacons may be installed where the crossing volume is as low as 20 pedestrians per hour, depending on the crossing distance, automobile traffic volume, and engineering judgment. As noted above, the City of Boulder has been successful in using RRFBs to increase motorist yielding to pedestrians at unsignalized crossings, typically where there are two travel lanes in each direction. A minimum crossing volume of 20 pedestrians per hour is typically required, as discussed in Section 2.1.3. However, also as noted in Section 2.1.6, there may be cases where the combination of high pedestrian and traffic volumes may make application of RRFBs inappropriate. Figure 2a and Figure 2b illustrate City of Boulder recommendations for the use of RRFBs overlain on the MUTCD Hawk beacon and Pedestrian Traffic Signal warrant guidelines. The City of Boulder recommendations are based on safety and operational evaluations performed over the years at high volume RRFB locations. In many cases, either HAWK beacons or RRFBs could be considered for application, and the final decision should be based on engineering judgment. Factors that should be considered include: automobile, bicycle and pedestrian volumes, vehicular speeds, crossing distances, the presence of a median or not, potential impact to corridor signal progression, proximity to signalized intersection, and vehicle queue formation. 2.2.8 Signal Progression and Traffic Operational Considerations The installation of RRFBs, HAWK beacons, or pedestrian traffic signals can all have a significant impact on the automobile traffic operation in a corridor. The automobile and pedestrian crossing volumes, the spacing to the adjacent signalized intersections, the type of pedestrian population (college students, elementary students, elderly, a mix) should all be considered when selecting the crossing treatment type and how it will be operated. Where practical, HAWK beacons and pedestrian traffic signals should be coordinated with the signal progression in the corridor to minimize the impact of the new traffic signal on corridor traffic flow. However, coordinated signals may be less responsive to pedestrian actuation, and the delay in City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 11 pedestrian service may result in some pedestrians crossing against the signal rather than waiting. Not coordinating the pedestrian crossing signals may result in unacceptable increases in automobile congestion and delay. RRFBs used at high volume pedestrian crossings in congested roadway corridors can also have a significant impact on automobile congestion and compromise effective signal progression. The RRFB limit line in Figure 2 can help minimize this problem. Once again, engineering judgment will need to be applied to reach the best compromise for all involved. 2.2.9 Differential Vehicle Queue Lengths and Pedestrian Safety A pedestrian crossing of a roadway with two or more lanes in a single direction has the potential for "multiple threat" type accidents. A multiple threat accident is when one lane of traffic stops for a pedestrian and obscures the view of the crossing pedestrian to a motorist in the adjacent travel lane. The result is that a pedestrian can step in front of a vehicle that is approaching too fast to stop. This condition is exacerbated when there are vehicle queues that back across the pedestrian crossing. If the queue in one lane backs into the crossing and is much longer than the queue in the adjacent lane, a motorist would commonly assume that the stopped traffic in one lane is the result of the queuing (which may usually be the case). Now if a vehicle in one lane stops for a pedestrian, instead of the queue, there is an even greater chance for a multiple threat accident. Therefore it is important for the engineer to be aware of the formation of queues to and across the pedestrian crossing from a downstream intersection. It is even more important for the engineer to be aware of routine occurrence of one queue longer than the other across the pedestrian crossing. The Operational Observations section of the Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet has a place to note this occurrence. When deciding to install an uncontrolled crossing treatment (or not), the engineer should consider if differential vehicle queue lengths is an issue, and if so, can they be mitigated (say by signal timing adjustments at the downstream intersection). If differential queues can not be minimized, it may be reason to not install an unprotected crossing treatment (such as Type A, B, or C). 2.2.10 Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation Staff is aware of the fact that there are locations where pedestrians regularly cross arterial roadways yet the crossing does not serve a multi-use path or a school, and the pedestrian volume is below the minimum thresholds in Figure 1 for installing the types of marked and signed treatments detailed in Table 1. These locations typically occur on 4-lane roadways (such as at the intersection of 23�d/Canyon) or 6-lane roadways (such as at the intersection of Broadway/Ash), and often serve transit stops in the area. In some cases, subject to engineering judgment, it may be appropriate to install treatments that facilitate pedestrian or bicycle City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 12 crossings but stop short of the signed and marked crossing treatments defined in Table 1. This type of treatment or pedestrian facilitation may include curb ramps and/or a raised median refuge, but no effort is made to attract pedestrians to this crossing. The treatments simply acknowledge the low volume, but regular pedestrian crossing that occurs at a location. Installing these treatments does not endorse the use of the crossing nor attempt to attract new users to the crossing. They simply acknowledge that the crossing is occurring, will not likely go away, and some level of facilitation can make it safer for the pedestrians or bicyclists that are using the crossing already. The only other option would be to ignore the crossing, but staff does not believe this is an appropriate response. These treatments will only be considered if the location is more than 300 feet from the nearest signed and marked pedestrian crossing (whether it is controlled or uncontrolled), and it is believed that there is little potential to redirect pedestrians to a more defined crossing location. 2.2.11 Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Higher Speed Roadways with Rural Character Even though most Boulder streets have speed limits of 35 mph or less, there are some locations, particularly on the edges of the city, where speed limits are 40 or 45 miles per hour and roadways are transitioning between City and Boulder County jurisdiction. County roads may increase to 50 miles per hour just beyond City limits. In this context, there may be conditions that necessitate the installation of pedestrian crossings where speeds are higher and special consideration is warranted. Boulder County Transportation staff also encountered these situations (ex. 75th St. from Jay to Lookout). For reference, Boulder County staff has utilized Boulder's PCTIGs as a starting point and modified them to address this type of higher speed roadway where pedestrian crossings may be needed. The County's approach is to require there to be a refuge median and enhanced signing at any crossing where the speed limit is 40 or 45 (although they currently do not use RRFBs). Where speed limits are greater than 45, the County considers if the speed limit can reasonably be lowered to effect a slower travel speed before declining to install an at grade crossing. In this context, it is recommended that engineering judgment be applied and consideration be given to providing an uncontrolled at-grade crossing treatment only if the speed limit can be effectively reduced to 40 mph and a raised refuge median is constructed has part of the crossing treatment (See Treatment Type E). City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 13 City of Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet Rev 11/2/11 • � • � • Major Street: Crossing Location: Is this a multi-use path crossing? ❑Yes ❑ No Posted Speed Limit: mph Existing Traffic Control: ❑Stop Sign ❑ Traffic Signal ❑ Uncontrolled Existing Crossing Treatments (if any): Nearby Pedestrian Generators (School, transit stop, commercial, etc.): . � . . Roadway Configuration: ❑ 2-Lane ❑ 5 Lane w/Striped Median ❑ 3-Lane w/Striped Median ❑ 5 Lane w/Raised Median ❑ 3 Lane w/Raised Median ❑ 6 Lane ❑ 4 Lane ❑ Other: Crossing Distance By Direction: ft total ft to median ft to median (if applicable+ (if applicable+ note direction) note direction) Nearest Marked or Protected Pedestrian Crossing: Distance to: ft (For uncontrolled location only) Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) = ft ft. Is SSD >_ 8x Speed Limit? ❑Yes ❑ No If No, are improvements to SSD feasible? ❑Yes ❑ No - . � . . Pedestrian Crossin Volumes/Bic cle Crossin Volumes: AM Mid-Day PM Other Time: to to to to Date/Day of Week: / / / / Major Street Vehicular Volume (Hourly): #of Transit Boardings (if applicable) #of Young Peds /Bicyclists / / / / #of Elderly Peds #of Disabled Peds #of Non-Y/E/D Peds/Bicyclists / / / / TOTAL PEDS (Actual)(Include All Bic clists in Total Sum TOTAL PEDS (Adjusted for 2x Y/E/D Major Street Vehicular Volume (Daily): ADT = veh/day Evaluation Worksheet Page 1 of 2 City of Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet (Continued) . • - - � • � • : � • Nearest Intersection (Direction #1): Cross Street Name: Located ft to the ❑N ❑S ❑E ❑W of crossing location Signalized? ❑Y ❑N Distance from Crossing ft AM Mid-Day PM Other How many times per hour did the downstream vehicle queue back up into pedestrian crossing? If multiple lanes per direction, are Y N Y N Y N Y N queue lengths approximately equal? If NO (above),which lane is longer (inside, outside, middle) and by how much (feet)? Nearest Intersection (Direction #2): Cross Street Name: Located ft to the ❑N ❑S ❑E ❑W of crossing location Signalized? ❑Y ❑N Distance from Crossing ft AM Mid-Day PM Other How many times per hour did the downstream vehicle queue back up into pedestrian crossing? If multiple lanes per direction, are Y N Y N Y N Y N queue lengths approximately equal? If NO (above),which lane is longer (inside, outside, middle) and by how much (feet)? . � . . � • ' - Recommended Treatment(s): Evaluation Worksheet Page 2 of 2 Identify candidate UNCONTROLLED °r°Ss�n9�°°a"°n CONTROLLED CROSSING CROSSING LOCATION LOCATION No actlon N ADT>_1,500 Uncontrolled Is location Controlled recommended vpd�'�? controlled or uncontrolled? Install marked N Y � crosswalk Stop Stop sign or Signal School signal Crossing?" Install marked g serves Meets min. controlled? � crosswalk w/ crossi� N N school crossin transit stop or other pedestrian Multi-Use Path 9 noticeabie.defined volume Crossing? sign on mast and regwar thresholds«> arm(51-1) ros sing«� � Y ExlsYing N ADT>_1,500 N No actlon Y marked vpd? recommended crosswalk? Consider installing "unmarked pedestnan crossln facilltaYion"�°� Meets2xme 9 N earest marke Y Y n1 pedest a��owme or protected Y mreshoids«�9 crossing>300' away�3�? Staff Direct peds to concerns Install marked nearest marked or Y rotected crossin about dnver Multi-Use Path aosswalk w/ P 9 Y Y compliance at Crossing? advance pedestrian crosswalk? slgns(W 114) Direct peds to nearest marked or Not Remove sight Adequate Feasible distance N stopping sight N N protected crossing distance? Sx Y or consider HAW K obstruction m � beacon,trafflc lowerspeedllmlt speedlimit) signal or grade- No action Meets min. separated crossing Consider neckdowns, edestrian N Y median refuge,or recommended pvolume No action addltlonal slgns to �z� recommended increase driver thresholds � Feasible GO t0 awareness of � Table 1 pedestrians �'�Exceptlons to the 1,500 vpd min.roadway volume threshold Y may be made for School Crossings where the peak hour traffic exceeds 10%ofthe dailytraffic Install marked crosswalk ��Minimum Pedestrian Volume Thresholds: Install marked w/school pedestrian crosswalk w/ N School Y crossing slgn(51-1)and -20 peds per houP in any one hour,or advance pedestrian Crossing?" down arrow(16-7p)at -18 peds per hour`in any two hours,or signs(W 11-2) crosswalk plus advance (51-1)signs -15 peds per hour`in any three hours ' Young,elderly,and disabled pedestrians count 2x towards volume thresholds " School Crossing defined as a crossing location where ten or more student pedestrians per hour are crossing. �3�Dlstance to nearest marked or protected crossing may be reduced to 200'In urban condltlons,subject to engineenng judgment,where 1)the crosswalk does cross any auxiliary lanes,and 2)crossing treatments and crossing activity would not create undue restriction to vehicular traffic operations. �°>An"unmarked pedestnan crossing facilltation"Is anytreatmentthat Improves a pedestrian's abllliyto cross a roadway,short ofthe marked,signed and enhanced crossings detailed in Table 1. Installation of this type of pedestrian facilitation is subjectto engineering judgment and may include curb ramps and/or a raised median reFuge. However,no effort is made to attract pedestrians or recommend that City of Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines pedestrianscrossatthislocation. Thetreatmentssimplyprovideanimprovementforalowvolume Figure 1 — Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart pedestrian crossing where pedestrians are already crossing and will like continue to cross. City of Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines Table 1 -Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations #of Roadway ADT and Posted Speed #of lanes multiple 1,500-9,000 vpd 9,000-12,000 vpd 12,000-15,000 vpd >15,000 vpd crossed threat Roadway to reach a lanes�'�per �30 35 40 >_45 <_30 35 40 >_45 <_30 35 40 >_45 <_30 35 40 >_45 Configuration refuge�'� crossing mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph 2 Lanes(one way street) 2 1 A B C E A B C E B B C E B C C E 2 Lanes(two way street with no median) 2 0 A B C E A B C E B B C E B C C E 3 Lanes w/Raised Median 1 or 2 0 or 1 A B D E A C D E B D D E C D D E 3 Lanes w//Striped Median 3 0 or 1 C C D E C C D E C C D E C D D E 4 Lanes(two way street with no median) 4 2 A D D E B D D E B D D E D D D E 5 Lanes w/Raised Median 2 or 3 2 A B D E B C D E B C D E C C D E 5 Lanes w/Striped Median 5 2 D D D E D D D E D D D E D D D E 6 Lanes(two way street with or without median) 3 to 6 4 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Notes: 1. Painted medians can never be considered a refuge for a crossing pedestrian. Similarly,a 4 foot wide raised median next to a left turn lane can only be considered a refuge for pedestrians if the left turning volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour(meaning that in most cases the left turn lane is not occupied while the pedestrian is crossing). 2. A multi le threat lane is defned as a throu h lane where it is ossible for a edestrian to ste out from in front of a sto ed vehicle in the ad�acent travel lane either throu h or tum lane. Treatment Descriptions: A Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side signs Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with"State Law-Yield to Pedestrian"signs mounted on the side of the roadway with standard(W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs;use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. B Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side and in-roadway(bollard mounted)signs Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with"State Law-Yield to Pedestrian"signs mounted on the side of the roadway and on in-roadway bollards;use standard(W11-2)advance pedestrian waming signs;use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. C Install marked crosswalk with enhanced signs and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure Specific Guidance: For 2 or 3-lane roadways,install marked crosswalk with"State Law-Yield to Pedestrian"signs mounted on the side of the roadway and on in-roadway bollards or median mounted signs;use standard(W11-2)advance pedestrian warning signs;use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Add neckdowns or median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. p Install marked crosswalk with enhanced signs,pedestrian activated RRFBs,and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure Specific Guidance: Install raised median refuge island(unless it is a one-way street or one already exists)to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. [If a median refuge can not be constructed on a two-way street,Go To Scenario F]. Install marked crosswalk with"State Law-Yield to Pedestrian"signs WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway and on median mounted signs;use standard(W11-2)advance pedestrian warning signs;use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Consider adding neckdowns at the crossing if on-street parking exists on the roadway and storm drain considerations will allow. (Note:If pedestrian volume falls above the RRFB limit line on Figure 2,consider Hawk beacon,pedestrian traffic signal,or grade-separated crossing.] E Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing. Determine if the speed limit can be effectively reduced to 40 mph AND a raised refuge median can be insta/led. If so,uUiize Scenario D criteria above. If this is not possible,or if pedestrian volume falls above the RRFB limit line on Figure 2,consider HAWK beacon,pedestrian tratfic signal,or grade-separated crossing. Specific Guidance: Consider HAWK beacon,pedestrian traffic signal or grade-separated crossing;application of these treatments will consider corridor signal progression,existing grades,phyiscal contraints,and other engieering factors F Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing with 3 or more THROUGH lanes per direction or where the speed limit is>_45 mph and/or there is not a median refuge on a 5-lane crossing. Consider HAWK beacon,pedestrian traffic signal,or grade-separated crossing. Specific Guidance: Consider HAWK beacon,pedestrian traffic signal or grade-separated crossing;application of these treatments will consider corridor signal progression,existing grades,phyiscal contraints,and other engieering factors Figure 2a. City of Eoulder Guidelines for the Installation of Fedestrian Hybrid (HAWK) Be2cons, Pedestri2n Si�n21s, or Rect�n�ul�r R2pid Flas� Beacon (RRFB) Signs on Low-Speed Roa�ways �aa 5peeds of 35 mph or less � L- crosswalk length for use when considering HAWK z w a 40Q � ¢ � a ; � ~ � � ;+ , RRFgN GONSIDER HAWK ci � p � �0, : o O = 3D� Q i �.- ; �t RFCpMMFH OF PONLY NAL ,• � � Q W y � f�� 'tif F� ONSI�ER HAWK, �`. r'^� �� PED SIGNAL D J � � � ��3 ��F CUNSIDER HAWK,PED �B 1. ¢ _ � n � '.�. i�r (4-HUUR),UR SIGNAL(PEAKHOUR), ovF�• � � Q 200 ►� � �. i� ��s'` OR RRFB H�S� � /H � � z � Z I ��j. �� coNsinea F Q � � �� i HAWK OR RRFB PEDESTRIA SIGNAL(PEAK HOUR) O (n � � � r�, ' PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 4-HOUR �07 O 10C] ~ � w I CONSIDER (� a � RRFB 20 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20 0 25fl 500 750 1�04"y' 125� 1500`'y"�75Q 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 (150 vph or MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- 1,500 vpd) VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) *RECOMMENDATION BASED ON CITY OF BOULDER SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT EXISTING RRFB SITES AND OBSERVED IMPACTS TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Figure 2b. City of Boulder Guidelines for the Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid (HAWK) Beacons, Pedestrian Signals, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) Signs on High-Speed Roadways �o� Speeds of more than 35 mph , L= cro55uvalk length f r use when considering HAWK � w � 400 � � � � RRFe NpT CO SIDER HAWK w p � 30f3 z RFCD OR PED SIGNAL Q � O ' _.r__ MM�AI F ONLY � cL w ~ � ti �p ��2. ,YO O � � � 'O� CONSIDER HAWK,PED ��Qt.� J = U) n ` �� y�G,Ps��p SIGNAL(PEAKHOUR), V TL, � � ¢ �OCJ �I E i l� �OC�y9�. OR RRFB '7� /I c � � 4 � � � 5� ��+�-�4 s ��'-p�, � i � � Z � m � . �.a. � �� Q (n � Z ��.�' p�a, `i `, i � O � 1 OO y f <' r �`f`* •''.�`� I PEDESTRIA SIGNAL(PEAK HOUR) r o ;� . 93 U � �p�'�`� CONSIDER I ��. RIAN SIGNAL(4-HOUR) 75 @ mp i HAWK OR RRFB 20 � — — �------ 20 0 25C1 500 75� iQ�O 1250 15�f] 175� 20�[} 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 (150 vph or 1,500 vpd) MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) * RECOMMENDATION BASED ON CITY OF BOULDER SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT EXISTING RRFB SITES AND OBSERVED IMPACTS TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES This section contains discussion of supplemental policies to guide the installation of crossing treatments in the City of Boulder. 3.1 Crosswalk Lighting Research provided by the FHWA recommends that adequate nighttime lighting should be provided at marked crosswalks to enhance the safety of pedestrians crossing at night. Crosswalk lighting will be provided at all crosswalks utilizing traffic signals, HAWK beacons and RRFBs. Crosswalk lighting will be provided at all other marked crosswalks, unless engineering judgement suggests crosswalk lighting is not needed. The placement and level of crosswalk lighting will be determined by engineering judgement at all crossing treatments. 3.2 Avoiding Overuse of Crossing Treatments The FHWA recommends that overuse of crosswalk markings should be avoided to maximize their effectiveness. Crosswalks and sign treatments (such as the "State Law — Yield to Pedestrians" and rectangular rapid flash beacon signs) should be used discriminately within the City of Boulder so that the effectiveness of these treatments is not deteriorated by overuse. Although these treatments may be effective at individual locations, overuse of these treatments city-wide may lead to a decrease in their value as drivers become desensitized to them. Minimum pedestrian and vehicular volume criteria have been established in this document with this in mind. 3.3 Multi-Use Path Crossings Crossing locations where a multi-use path crosses a roadway should include a marked and signed crosswalk at a minimum, regardless of pedestrian crossing volumes, as long as the minimum vehicular volume criteria in Section 2.1.2 is satisfied. This policy is to promote the use of multi-use paths recognizing that roadway crossings often create barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists and may contribute to a lack of use. 3.4 Textured and Colored Pavement Treatments Textured, brick, and/or colored pavement treatments should typically not be used in lieu of a marked crosswalk. When such treatments are used they are often aesthetic and not considered traffic control devices. Retroreflective pavement markings are required at any location serving as a marked crosswalk. Exceptions are granted for signalized intersection crossings, right-turn bypass (raised) crossings, and for multi-use path crossings at driveways and unsignalized intersections where the City has developed other treatments designed to call attention to the crossings. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 19 3.5 Accessible Crosswalks It is the goal of the City of Boulder that all crosswalks installed will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to maximize mobility for all users. Where a new crosswalk is installed in a curbed roadway, curb ramps will include a detectable warning surface. The City intends to retrofit existing non-ADA compliant curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces as part of its on-going sidewalk maintenance program. 3.6 Raised Crossings at Right-Turn Bypass Islands Raised pedestrian crossings at right-turn bypass islands meet the goals of these guidelines by improving visibility for pedestrians, improving accessibility, and helping to mitigate the speed of right-turning vehicle traffic. City staff will review all new or proposed right-turn bypass movements to determine if a raised crossing should be installed. If deemed feasible, a raised crossing will be incorporated into the design. 3.7 Removal of Treatments Conditions that contribute to the need for a crosswalk or crossing treatments may change over time, and an existing crosswalk or treatment may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface is to be impacted by reconstruction or resurfacing, a review of any unprotected crosswalks should be performed to determine their use and need. If the use of a crosswalk is less than half of that which would be required for it to be warranted based on the criteria established in these guidelines for a new installation, the crosswalk should not be replaced when the construction or resurfacing is done and any other treatments will be removed. In such cases, residents and property owners within 1000' of walking distance to the crosswalk in question will be notified via mail. In addition, notices will be visibly posted for 30 days prior at the crossing location to inform the public of the intent to remove them. City contact information will be provided on these mailings and notices. Should concerns arise from the public as a result of that mailing or from the notification sign at the crosswalk, staff may then begin a more substantial public process with concerned parties. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 20 4.0 NEXT STEPS The City of Boulder is committed to providing safe and effective pedestrian crossing treatments and will continue to evaluate the criteria and treatments being used to implement treatments throughout the City. Specifically, City staff will carry out the following "Next Steps" to ensure that the pedestrian crossing treatment program meets the goals defined in this document: ■ Continue testing and evaluation of new multi-lane crossing treatments. These treatments may include variations and/or combinations of the existing RRFB signs to increase both driver and pedestrian awareness at crosswalks. As newer technologies continue to develop into more viable options, passive detection devices such as microwave or video detection may also be tested. As performed for existing devices in the City, evaluation of new devices will include both the effectiveness of devices and a safety (accident history) analysis. Although operational impacts can be evaluated within months of installation of a treatment, it should be noted that safety analysis will require years of accident data to provide relevant results. ■ As Federal signing standards continue to become more progressive with respect to enhanced pedestrian signing, strive to become compliant with the standards. This can be accomplished through a combination of bringing Boulder's policies/standards more in line with Federal standards as well as utilizing Boulder's significant experience to help shape future changes to Federal standards. ■ Continue to evaluate the City's policy towards provision of curb ramps and median breaks at crossing locations where crosswalks are not provided due to speed, volume, or other consideration. ■ Stay current with the latest pedestrian crossing research being performed at the federal, state, and municipal level. As more communities strive to increase the viability of pedestrian mode use additional studies and new findings are being made available. The City of Boulder will look to utilize this research to improve its own use of pedestrian crossing treatments. ■ Continue to receive feedback from City of Boulder citizens with respect to various crossing treatments and the criteria established in this document to implement these treatments. ■ Continue to work with the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council to implement policies, including these guidelines and any future amendments to this document, to promote the use of pedestrian facilities and the safety of people using them. ■ Coordinate with the State of Colorado to modify current state law to include the curb ramp area the definition of a legal crosswalk so that it is clear that a motorist should yield to a pedestrian waiting to cross at a crosswalk. ■ Develop an implementation plan to upgrade existing, qualifying crossing locations with "State Law—Yield to Pedestrians" signs as prescribed in this document. ■ Continue to evaluate the effectiveness of raised crossings at right-turn bypass islands and work to develop a city-wide policy for application of these treatments. ■ Collect data at crossing locations where treatments have been requested (or as defined in the Transportation Master Plan) and apply the criteria in this document to create a list City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 21 of projects for implementation. Staff will then prioritize the list of projects and perform crossing treatment installations based on funding availability. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 22 APPENDIX City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 23 A1.0 Backqround Roadway crossings can be barriers to pedestrian travel. The decision to travel as a pedestrian is in part dependent upon the actual and perceived ability to safely and efficiently cross roadways along the pedestrian's intended travel route. The City of Boulder wants to encourage pedestrian travel by providing safe and efficient roadway crossing opportunities. There are a variety of inethods available to help facilitate pedestrian crossings on busy roadways, including marked crosswalks, enhanced crosswalks, and traffic signals. Crosswalk enhancements may include alternative signing, pedestrian-activated warning devices that draw attention to the pedestrian and alert motorists to their presence at a crosswalk, and physical enhancements intended to increase pedestrian visibility and/or reduce exposure such as neckdowns, raised crosswalks, and median refuges. Signalized traffic control measures to reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts typically increase delays for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This creates a conflict between providing safety and generating operational efficiency for all modes of travel. These guidelines are tailored to meet the needs of the City of Boulder for optimizing safety and minimizing delay. The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines will provide a framework for identifying locations where pedestrian crossing treatments are appropriate and should be implemented by the City. Application of these guidelines should accomplish the following project goals: • Promote pedestrian travel by providing safe, efficient, and effective roadway crossing opportunities • Reflect the needs of our diverse range of pedestrian age and ability groups • Provide for a balance between the demand for treatments and resources to implement them • Achieve a reasonable balance of impacts to all modes of travel A1.1 Standards and Policies Upon beginning the process of determining pedestrian crossing installation criteria, an extensive review of the latest available technical literature was conducted. This current effort was intended to build upon the research conducted during the previous (1996 and 2006 efforts. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the national standard for establishing traffic control on roadways throughout the United States and has been adopted by the City of Boulder as the City standard. Although the MUTCD does provide pedestrian crossing warrant criteria for the installation of pedestrian traffic signals, these warrants have been controversial in that signals are typically very hard to justify. According to the Federal Highway Administration's report on pedestrian signalization alternatives (July 1985), "The existing [1978] MUTCD Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant is highly impractical for most real- world conditions and is largely ignored by the traffic engineering community." The MUTCD also offers little guidance with respect to the installation of marked crosswalks, stating that City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 24 "crosswalks should be marked at all intersections where there is a substantial conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements" and that an "engineering study should be performed before they are installed at (uncontrolled) locations." In response to the controversial MUTCD pedestrian volume and school crossing traffic signal warrants, and lack of guidance by the MUTCD with respect to the installation of marked crosswalks, some agencies have developed their own unique policies and procedures. Generally, these documents supplement the basic provisions of the MUTCD with more detailed criteria based on their own research and field studies. In 1997, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) adopted the "Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities"2 as a Recommended Practice. This document built on MUTCD policies and guidelines and provided thresholds for the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations based on those developed by Steven A Smith and Richard L. Knoblauch3. These guidelines provide recommended thresholds for marked crosswalks based on minimum hourly pedestrian volume, average daily traffic volumes, roadway configuration (laneage and presence of inedian refuges). In 2002 the FHWA published a report titled, "Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines"'. Based on a five-year safety analysis at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked crossing locations, this report provides recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and enhancements based on roadway volume, speed, and laneage. The report suggests that on two-lane roadways, marked crosswalks alone at uncontrolled locations have no effect on pedestrian accident rates. The report also suggests that, on multi-lane roadways with a traffic volume greater than 12,000 vehicles per day, marked crosswalks alone (without any other treatments) are associated with higher vehicle-pedestrian accidents rates compared to unmarked locations. Several years ago the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted a set of guidelines4 for the installation of marked crosswalks that built upon the FHWA recommendations and provided more detailed guidance with respect to what types of crosswalk enhancements may be appropriate for a given set of roadway. These guidelines provided five basic levels of devices given the conditions present. Level 1: standard crosswalk, raised crossing, rumble strips Level2: high-visibility crosswalks (retroreflective white markings and textured pavements) Level 3: refuge islands, split-pedestrian crossover, neckdowns Level 4: overhead signs and flashing beacons, in-roadway warning lights Level 5: pedestrian-actuated traffic signals, grade-separated crossings During the research review, it was noted that the City of Boulder's existing minimum pedestrian volume thresholds (based on the 1996 document) for basic crossing treatments were typically higher than those adopted by the agencies researched. The Virginia guidelines4, for instance, state a minimum requirement of 20 pedestrians per hour (15 elderly and/or children) or 60 in four hours crossing at the location in question. The City of San Jose, CAS have adopted guidelines that require at least 15 pedestrians crossing the street during the highest one-hour period or 25 pedestrians crossing during the highest consecutive two-hour period. This is in comparison to the previously adopted City of Boulder thresholds of 100 pedestrians per hour or 50 pedestrians per hour during the peak four hours. It is believed that this downward trend in City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 25 pedestrian volume necessary to warrant treatments is both a result of increased efforts by agencies to accommodate pedestrians and provide safer and more efficient pedestrian facilities. A1.2 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements A wide range of crossing enhancements (treatments used to increase the effectiveness of marked crosswalks) are being used in other communities in the United States and elsewhere which have been considered for use in the City of Boulder. The most comprehensive resource for information relative to these devices, including pros and cons, costs, and effectiveness, is the Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossinas6. Enhancements being used elsewhere include: • Automated detection • Markings and legends • Curb extensions • Overhead signs • In-pavement lighting • Pedestrian railings • Flags • Raised markers (with LEDs) • Flashing beacons • Refuge islands • In-roadway signs • Street lighting • Lane reductions • Raised crossings • Rumble strips • Pavement treatments Many of these treatments are being used and/or have been tested as "demonstration" devices in the City of Boulder, with varying degrees of success. Devices used in the City of Boulder have included most of the physical devices shown above, in addition to demonstration devices such as in-pavement lighting, rumble strips, flashing signs, in-roadway signs, and alternative signs and markings (such as the "State Law Yield-to-Pedestrians" signs and advance yield markings). In 2000, city staff began demonstrating two new enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments. The purpose of these treatments was to draw attention to high volume pedestrian crossing locations and to encourage vehicles to have better compliance with their legal requirement to yield to pedestrians in these locations. The first demonstration was a new, multi-colored sign which stated "State Law - YIELD to Pedestrians in Crosswalk." The signs were placed on an orange barrel or bollard in the street and mounted on a standard assembly at the side of the street. The other demonstration was pedestrian actuated flashing lights imbedded in a standard pedestrian warning sign, mounted at the side of the road and on medians in the center of the road. These lights flash when a pedestrian pushes a button. Over the past 11 years, staff has been expanding the use of these demonstration devices to other locations within the city. The City of Boulder will continue to stay abreast of the latest crossing enhancement technologies and research and will continue to test and modify its own applications to maximize the safety and efficiency of these treatments. A discussion of the "Next Steps" involved in this process is included in Section 4.0 City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 26 A1.3 Evaluation of Demonstration Devices Used in the City of Boulder Over the past 14 years, the City of Boulder has evaluated driver compliance at crosswalks both before and after the installation of"demonstration devices". The devices evaluated included: ■ "State Law—Yield to Pedestrians" Signs and Bollards (used at 2 or 3-lane crossings) ■ Pedestrian Activated Flashing (or RRFB) Signs (used primarily at multi-lane crossings) ■ Rumble strips In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of these devices in terms of driver compliance, accident histories were compiled to compare the safety effects of the demonstration devices both before and after installation. The evaluations have showed that the "State Law -Yield" and RRFB devices are effective at getting more vehicles to comply with state law and yield to pedestrians in crosswalks than if not installed. They accomplish this with a relatively minor impact to vehicle delay. In addition, the evaluation showed that at locations with "State Law — Yield to Pedestrians" signs, there were very few examples of increased accident frequency for either rear-end collisions or accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists being hit by a motor vehicle. The majority of accident frequencies either stayed the same or was reduced at locations studied. At locations using the pedestrian-actuated flashing signs, there were increases in rear-end collision frequencies at some locations and increases in the frequency of pedestrians or bicycles being hit in the crosswalk at several locations. Injury accident frequencies also increased at many locations. It should be noted that, since these devices were installed primarily at multi- lane crossing locations, the effectiveness of these devices cannot be directly compared to the "State-Law" signs. While the pedestrian-actuated flashing signs do not change the rules of the roadway, the effectiveness of encouraging vehicles to yield to pedestrians has resulted in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians, which has further resulted in more rear-end collisions (this same phenomenon exists when new traffic signals are installed in the roadway). It is possible that the increased compliance of motor vehicles yielding to pedestrians is also resulting in some pedestrians and bicyclists using less caution when they cross which in turn results in an increase in vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle accidents. Further analysis of the safety effects of these devices is recommended so that a larger sample of data may be obtained and accident trends related to physical and environmental variables may be identified. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 27 Bibliography ' Zegeer, C.V., Stewart, R.J., Huang, H.H., Lagerwey, P.A. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, FHWA RD-01-075. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., February 2002. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, D.C., March 1998. 3 Smith, Steven A., Knoblauch, Richard L. Guidelines for the Installation of Crosswalk Markings. Transportation Research Record 1141, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987. 4 Dougald, Lance E. Development of Guidelines for the Installation of Marked Crosswalks. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia. December 2004. 5 City of San Jose, California, Department of Transportation. Guidelines for the Installation and Removal of Marked Crosswalks. April 2005. 6 Lalani Nazir and the ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Task Force. Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2001. City of Bou/der Pedestrian Crossing Treatment lnstallation Guidelines Page 28