The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20250989 Rt 9 / South Broadway Special Use Permit CME Correspondence - GTS Consulting 07.22.2026 1396 White Bridge Road Chittenango, NY 13037 Tel: (315) 391-5110 July 22, 2026 Bohler Engineering 17 Computer Drive West Albany, NY 12205 Attn: Mr. Steve Wilson Re: Response to 7/17/2026 CME Comments Traffic Impact Study Proposal – Proposed Mixed Use Development US Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY Dear Mr. Wilson: I have reviewed the July 17th, 2026 comments from Creighton Manning Engineers regarding the June 8th, 2026 updated traffic impact study for the proposed mixed use development on US Route 9 in Saratoga Springs, NY. The following provides a summary of additional comments in bold italics, followed by my responses. It is noted that CME did not maintain the comment numbering from the previous comments (for example, what is noted as comment #21 in the July comments was #24 in the April comments), therefore the original comment numbering was maintained in this response. Comment #11 - The crash analysis that covers the March 2022 to February 2025 time period adequately summarizes crashes on US Route 9. With that being said, it is noted that the “beer-to-go” opening of the Tree House Brewery occurred in December 2024; however, the actual taproom did not open until March of 2025. This indicates that the crash assessment did not capture conditions when this neighboring facility was fully operational. A new request of crashes should be made to summarize current conditions. Has crash frequency increased on this section of US Route 9 since the opening of the Tree House Brewery? GTS Consulting Response: A crash analysis was completed for US Route 9 between Crescent Avenue and E West Road using history reports obtained for a four year period from May 2022 through May 2026. CM Response: A review of the data indicates that the number of crashes generally did not change after development of the Tree House Brewery as summarized in Table 1. Table 1 – Crashes by Year Year Total Crashes May 2022-December 2022 (8 months) 9 January 2023-December 2023 (12 months) 6 January 2024-December 2024 (12 months) 8 Approximate Opening of Tree House Brewery -- January 2025-December 2025 (12 months) 8 January 2026-May 2026 (5 months) 3 No additional response is necessary. Mr. Wilson July 22, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Re: Response to 7/17/2026 CME Comments Traffic Impact Study Proposal – Proposed Mixed Use Development US Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY Comment #12 - Provide the detailed MV-104 reports for the crashes so that the severity and cause of these incidents can be reviewed. It is noted that there was a fatality in the project corridor on September 30, 2025. GTS Consulting Response: Overall, there were 30 property damage only crashes with 4 injury crashes and 1 fatality crashes. The fatality crash occurred on September 30th, 2025 involving a tractor t railer traveling southbound on US Route 9 striking at pickup truck that stopped on the southbound shoulder of the roadway. CM Response: The MV-104 reports were included in the updated letter. A review of the injury related crashes indicates that two occurred when a southbound motorist failed to yield the right -of-way to a northbound vehicle when turning into the Homewood Suites parking lot. The other injury crash occurred at the E West Road traffic signal when a southbound motorist rear -ended vehicles waiti ng at the traffic light due to alcohol involvement. The other injury crash noted in the letter had nothing to do with the vehicle incident. The driver was taken to the hospital due to an unrelated medical issue. The unfortunate fatal crash occurred when a truck driver failed to keep left and struck a vehicle/driver who had stopped on the shoulder of US Route 9. No additional response is necessary. Trip Generation and Distribution Comment #17 - The trip distribution assumes that the majority of traffic (8 0%) will use the northern driveway; however, the most recent site plan shows that the southern driveway provides access to approximately 55% of the parking spaces and appears to be the main access into the site. The trip distribution should be updated to reflect this. In addition, motorists generally do not pass the first driveway they come to in order to access a development. GTS Consulting Response: Based on existing traffic patterns and population centers in the area, 50% of the new trips generated are expected to travel to/from the south on US Route 9, 40% are expected to travel to/from the north on US Route 9, and 10% are expected to travel to/from the east on Crescent Avenue. The expected arrival/departure distribution is shown in Figure 3. CM Response: There is a minor error on Figure 3 for the southbound through movement at the southern site driveway. This did not impact future trip assignments or analysis. No additional response is necessary. Mr. Wilson July 22, 2026 Page 3 of 6 Re: Response to 7/17/2026 CME Comments Traffic Impact Study Proposal – Proposed Mixed Use Development US Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY Build Operations Comment #19 - A discussion of int ersection control is not provided for the proposed Site Driveway intersections on US Route 9. The Synchro analysis indicates that these will operate under stop -sign control with a single lane entering and exiting the site; however, the most recent plan shows separate left and right turn lanes exiting the site and two entering lanes at the southern driveway. Provide the anticipated geometry at these locations. Was a traffic signal warrant considered at the site driveway locations? GTS Consulting Response: A signal warrant analysis was completed for the site driveway intersections at US Route 9 to confirm that signals are not warranted at either location with the proposed full build out of the proposed mixed use development. The 2028 weekday morning and evening peak hour build traffic volumes for the approaches to both intersections were extrapolated over a typical day from 6am to 7pm based on the typical variation in hourly volumes on urban streets, developed by the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University. The morning peak hour volumes were extrapolated from 6am to 12pm, and the evening peak hour volumes were extrapolated from 12pm to 7pm. Both the typical variation in traffic graphic and estimated hourly traffic volumes at each intersection have been attached. A traffic signal is not warranted at either of the two proposed site driveways. CM Response: A review of the daily traffic volumes developed at the site access intersections used general hourly variations provided by The Traffic Institute at Northea stern University for an urban road. Since US Route 9 and the proposed uses will generate traffic differently over the course of a typical day, the hourly traffic volumes for the signal warrant should be revised based on the following: • US Route 9 Through Volumes – Use hourly variation data that can be obtained from the existing ATR on US Route 9. • Site Generated Trips – Use the “Time of Day Trip Distribution – Vehicle” data provided by ITE in the Trip Generation Manual Appendix to develop hourly traffic assumptions associated with entering/exiting traffic for each specific land use since apartments, hotels, and commercial spaces generate trips differently over the course of a typical day. A review of the warrant assessment indicates that operating speeds on US Route 9 were not applied to the various volume thresholds. These should be updated since the thresholds are reduced when mainline speeds exceed 40-mph. It is noted that NYSDOT has not provided comments regarding access to the site. Section 5A.4.1.3 of th e Highway Design Manual (HDM) – Chapter 5 Appendix 5A (POLICY and STANDARDS for the Design of Entrances to State Highways) indicates that, “Normally only one driveway shall be permitted for each residential property, minor commercial property, and subdivision. An additional driveway may be permitted by the Department if both sufficient frontage exists, and extenuating circumstances justify a Mr. Wilson July 22, 2026 Page 4 of 6 Re: Response to 7/17/2026 CME Comments Traffic Impact Study Proposal – Proposed Mixed Use Development US Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY second driveway.” Will a traffic signal be warranted if NYSDOT eliminates one of the driveways or restricts access to one of the curb -cuts in order to minimize conflict points on US Route 9? The signal warrant assessment should be updated to reflect the revised traffic conditions, reduced volume thresholds, and potential access modifications (one or two points of access). As requested, revised hourly traffic volumes were generated assuming a worst case single access driveway on US Route 9. The north/south through volumes on US Route 9 were taken from the existing ATR count on US Route 9. The site generated trips were extrapolated for each land use separately based on the ITE Time of Day Trip Distribution data in the ITE Trip Generation Manual Appendix. The hourly traffic volume calculations have been attached. A revised signal warrant analysis was completed using the 70% volume thresholds given that operating speeds on US Route 9 are over 40mph. Signal Warrant #1 – Condition A – With a single access driveway, the driveway traffic volumes would not meet the reduced 105 vehicle warrant threshold for any hour during a typical weekday. The driveway volumes will certainly not meet the warrant with the two proposed driveways. Signal Warrant #1 – Condition B – With a single access driveway, the driveway traffic volumes would meet the reduced 53 vehicle warrant threshold for 12 hours during a typical weekday by approximately 10-20 vehicles per hour. With traffic volumes projected to be fairly evenly split (55%/45%) between the two proposed driveways, the driveway volumes would not meet the reduced warrant thresholds for any hour during a typical weekday with two driveways. Signal Warrant #1 – Combination A and B - With a single access driveway, the driveway traffic volumes would not meet the reduced 84 vehicle warrant threshold for any hour during a typical weekday. The driveway volumes will certainly not meet the warrant with the two proposed driveways. Signal Warrant #2 – Four Hour - With a single access driveway, the driveway traffic volumes would meet the reduced 60 vehicle warrant threshold for 10 hours during a typical weekday by approximately 10-20 vehicles per hour. With traffic volumes projected to be fairly evenly split (55%/45%) between the two proposed driveways, the driveway volumes would not meet the reduced warrant thresholds for any hour during a typical weekday with two driveways. Signal Warrant #3 – Capacity analyses were completed for a single driveway with combined 2028 build traffic volumes during the three peak hours and have been attached. With a single access driveway, the side approach is projected to operate at LOS D or better during the three peak hours. Delays do not meet the warrant thresholds with a single access and would certainly not with two driveways. The detailed signal warrant analysis has been attached. NYSDOT will make the determination on whether they will permit two driveways as proposed, as well as if a traffic signal is required. It is noted that there will be two separate parcels for the hotel and multifamily uses, which will support NYSDOT’s permitting of the two proposed curb cuts. Mr. Wilson July 22, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Re: Response to 7/17/2026 CME Comments Traffic Impact Study Proposal – Proposed Mixed Use Development US Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY Attachments Comment #24 - It is unclear if the HV column (Heavy Vehicles) are in addition to the counts noted by movement since they are added to get the total intersection volume. The “Heavy Vehicles” can be added to the peak hour summary sheet by movement and should be provided to confirm that they do not need to be added separately to each intersection movement. GTS Consulting Response: Not answered. CM Response: This comment was not specifically addressed. Please indicate if heavy vehicles are included in the traffic volumes shown on the Figures. There was a response to the April comment, repeated below: The heavy vehicles are included in each separate movement and called out separately to determine approach percentages. They should not be added to the intersection movements. Comment #25 - Why is the Synchro Percentile Delay level of service reports used at the signalized intersections instead of the HCM 7th edition reports? GTS Consulting Response: Not answered. CM Response: This comment was not specifically addressed. Please indicate why the HCM 7th edition was not used. There was a response to the April comment, repeated below: The Synchro reports are used instead the HCM 7th Edition reports because the HCM does not support the phase numbering used by NYSDOT at the signalized intersections. Comment #26 - The analysis for the unsignalized intersections should account for the two -way left-turn lane (TWLTL) since motorists existing the development can make a two -stage left-turn to travel south on US Route 9. GTS Consulting Response: Not applied. CM Response: This comment was not specifically addressed; however, it is noted that the unsignalized intersections operate adequately even without the TWLTL which would improve LOS conditions. This should be updated if the site driveway intersection analysis is updated to address future comments. Mr. Wilson July 22, 2026 Page 6 of 6 Re: Response to 7/17/2026 CME Comments Traffic Impact Study Proposal – Proposed Mixed Use Development US Route 9, Saratoga Springs, NY There was a response to the April comment, repeated below: The two way center left turn lane is included in the analysis models. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, Gordon T. Stansbury, P.E., P.T.O.E. GTS Consulting Attachments Updated Hourly Volumes Updated Signal Warrant Analysis Single Access Capacity Analysis Printouts Entering Exiting Apartments-128Units-ITELU220 397 397 Retail-9800SF-ITELU822 267 267 Hotel-120Rooms-ITELU310 350 350 DistributionofTrips-50%/50%SplitTo/FromNorthandSouthonUSRoute9 Hour Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting WBLeft WBRight NBRight SBLeft WBLeft WBRight NBRight SBLeft WBLeft WBRight NBRight SBLeft 6-7am 1.4%6.9%0.5%0.5%0.8%2.2%14 14 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 7-8am 2.0%10.8%2.2%2.2%2.4%8.2%21 21 4 4 3 3 3 3 14 14 4 4 8-9am 3.1%8.5%4.5%4.5%3.3%6.3%17 17 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 11 6 6 9-10am 2.9%4.9%5.8%5.8%4.8%6.7%10 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 12 12 8 8 10-11am 2.4%4.8%6.5%6.5%5.9%7.8%9 9 5 5 9 9 9 9 14 14 10 10 11am-12pm 3.8%4.7%6.3%6.3%7.4%8.1%9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 14 13 13 12-1pm 4.5%4.1%6.1%6.1%10.3%6.2%8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 11 11 18 18 1-2pm 4.0%4.4%6.9%6.9%10.7%7.2%9 9 8 8 9 9 9 9 13 13 19 19 2-3pm 5.6%4.9%6.1%6.1%7.8%8.0%10 10 11 11 8 8 8 8 14 14 14 14 3-4pm 6.9%5.3%7.4%7.4%8.2%7.0%11 11 14 14 10 10 10 10 12 12 14 14 4-5pm 10.1%5.6%8.0%8.0%7.1%7.6%11 11 20 20 11 11 11 11 13 13 12 12 5-6pm 11.4%7.6%8.0%8.0%8.8%6.5%15 15 23 23 11 11 11 11 11 11 15 15 6-7pm 9.7%6.7%8.0%8.0%5.4%4.8%13 13 19 19 11 11 11 11 8 8 9 9 Hour NBThru SBThru WBLeft WBRight NBRight SBLeft WB NB SB 6-7am 503 377 18 18 5 5 36 508 382 7-8am 800 687 39 39 11 11 78 811 698 8-9am 969 680 34 34 18 18 68 987 698 9-10am 848 595 29 29 22 22 58 870 617 10-11am 810 576 32 32 24 24 64 834 600 11am-12pm 929 635 32 32 29 29 64 958 664 12-1pm 915 649 27 27 35 35 55 950 684 1-2pm 859 630 31 31 36 36 61 895 666 2-3pm 803 690 32 32 33 33 64 836 723 3-4pm 855 852 33 33 38 38 65 893 890 4-5pm 952 950 35 35 43 43 70 995 993 5-6pm 1013 846 37 37 49 49 74 1062 895 6-7pm 835 603 32 32 39 39 65 874 642 ITEHourlyDistributionofTrips(PercentageofDailyVolume) TripsGenerated TotalApproachVolumes ProposedMixedUseDevelopment-USRoute9-SaratogaSprings,NY UpdatedHourlyApproachVolumes-AssumingOneAccess Apartments-LU220 Hotel-LU310 ApartmentTripsGenerated RetailTripsGenerated HotelTripsGenerated USRoute9Volumes 2024ATRCount OverallWeekday Retail-LU822 Proposed Multi-Use Development – Saratoga Springs, NY Single Site Driveway @ US Route 9 2028 Build Condition 7/21/2026 DEFINITIONS and CHECK of TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration lists 8 minimum warrants for signalization. Primary ones reviewed follows: Warrant 1: Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume is met when the traffic volumes for any eight hours of an average day meet the minimum requirements given in Table 4C-1 of the MUTCD based on the number of approach lanes to the intersection. For the major street, the total volume for both approaches is used. For the minor street, the higher volume approach (one direction only) is used. The same 8 hour-period should be used for both the major street and the minor street. Thresholds have been reduced to 70% due to operating speeds over 40mph on US Route 9. • Two through lanes per direction on mainline – Volume must exceed 420 vehicles • One lane on side street – Volume must exceed 105 vehicles o Mainline Thresholds are met for 13 hrs o Side Street Threshold s are met for 0 hrs Warrant #1, Condition A: Not Met Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic accommodates operating conditions where extremely heavy major-street traffic causes excessive delay or hazards to the minor street traffic. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes of any 8 hours of an average day meet the minimum requirements given in Table 4C-1 of the MUTCD and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. For the major street, the total volume for both approaches is used. For the minor street, the higher volume approach (one direction only) is used. The same 8 hour -period should be used for both the major street and the minor street. Thresholds have been reduced to 70% due to operating speeds over 40mph on US Route 9. • Two through lanes per direction on mainline – Volume must exceed 630 vehicles • One lane on side street – Volume must exceed 53 vehicles o Mainline Thresholds are met for 13 hrs – Both Driveways o Side Street Thresholds are met for 12 hrs – Both Driveways Warrant #1 – Condition B: Met Combination of Conditions A and B recognizes that there are occasional cases in which signalization may be justified but the locations do not meet the minimum requirements of a single warrant. This condition permits a signal installation to be considered where Conditions A and B, are satisfied to the extent o f 80% of the established numerical value. For the major street, the total volume for both approaches is used. For the minor street, the higher volume approach (one direction only) is used. The same 8 hour -period should be used for both the major street and the minor street. Thresholds have been reduced to 70% due to operating speeds over 40mph on US Route 9. • 80% Condition A – Mainline greater than 336 vehicles, Side Street greater than 84 vehicles • 80% Condition B – Mainline greater than 504 vehicles, Side Street greater than 42 vehicles Condition A • Mainline Thresholds are met for 13 hrs – Both Driveways • Side Street Thresholds are met for 0 hrs – Both Driveways Condition B • Mainline Thresholds are met for 13 hrs – Both Driveways • Side Street Thresholds are met for 12 hrs – Both Driveways Warrant #1 - Combination of Conditions A and B: Not Met Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume is based on 4-hour volumes instead of the eight hour volumes used in Warrants 1, 2 and 8. The wording of t he warrant states that this warrant is satisfied (for urban locations) when, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor-street approach (one direction only) exceed the curve shown in Figure 4C-2 of the MUTCD. Thresholds have been reduced to 70% due to operating speeds over 40mph on US Route 9. Volume Threshold s are met for 10 hrs Warrant #2 – Four Hour Vehicular Volume: Met Warrant 3: Peak-Hour is satisfied when all the following conditions are met: • The total delay experienced by the traffic on the side street controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a one lane approach and 5 vehicle hours for a two -lane approach. • The volume on the side-street approaches equals or exceeds 100 vph for a one -lane approach or 150 vph for a two-lane approach. • The total entering volume serviced during this hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. Delays without traffic signal do not meet warrant Warrant #3 – Peak Hour: Not Met Warrant #4 – Pedestrian Volume – The existing pedestrian volumes are minimal in the area and would not meet the warrant. Warrant #4 – Pedestrian Volume: Not Met Warrant #5 – School Crossing – not applicable Warrant #5 – School Crossing – Not Applicable Warrant #6 – Coordinated Signal System – not applicable Warrant #6 – Coordinated Signal System: Not Applicable Warrant #7 – Crash Experience – not applicable – No significant crash history in study area. Warrant #7 – Crash Experience: Not Applicable Warrant #8 – Roadway Network – not applicable Warrant #8 – Roadway Network: Not Applicable Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: US Route 9 & South Access 07/21/2026 2028 Build Conditions - Weekday Morning Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report GTS Consulting Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 38 38 987 28 28 774 Future Volume (vph) 38 38 987 28 28 774 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 0 3460 0 1787 3471 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 0 3460 0 1787 3471 Link Speed (mph) 30 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 319 2527 272 Travel Time (s) 7.3 31.3 3.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 0 1116 0 31 851 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 7th TWSC 16: US Route 9 & South Access 07/21/2026 2028 Build Conditions - Weekday Morning Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report GTS Consulting Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 38 987 28 28 774 Future Vol, veh/h 38 38 987 28 28 774 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - 150 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 4 1 1 4 Mvmt Flow 42 42 1085 31 31 851 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1587 558 0 0 1115 0 Stage 1 1100 - - - - - Stage 2 487 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.82 6.92 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.82 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.82 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.51 3.31 - - 2.21 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 100 476 - - 628 - Stage 1 282 - - - - - Stage 2 586 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 95 476 - - 628 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 208 - - - - - Stage 1 282 - - - - - Stage 2 558 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 22.37 0 0.39 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 290 628 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.288 0.049 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 22.4 11 - HCM Lane LOS - - C B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.2 - Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: US Route 9 & South Access 07/21/2026 2028 Build Conditions - Weekday Evening Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report GTS Consulting Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 41 43 986 51 50 1046 Future Volume (vph) 41 43 986 51 50 1046 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1709 0 3549 0 1787 3539 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1709 0 3549 0 1787 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 319 2527 272 Travel Time (s) 7.3 31.3 3.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 0 1127 0 54 1137 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 7th TWSC 16: US Route 9 & South Access 07/21/2026 2028 Build Conditions - Weekday Evening Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report GTS Consulting Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 43 986 51 50 1046 Future Vol, veh/h 41 43 986 51 50 1046 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - 150 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 2 Mvmt Flow 45 47 1072 55 54 1137 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1777 564 0 0 1127 0 Stage 1 1099 - - - - - Stage 2 677 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.82 6.92 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.82 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.82 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.51 3.31 - - 2.21 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 75 472 - - 621 - Stage 1 283 - - - - - Stage 2 469 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 472 - - 621 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 185 - - - - - Stage 1 283 - - - - - Stage 2 428 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 25.18 0 0.52 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 268 621 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.34 0.087 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 25.2 11.3 - HCM Lane LOS - - D B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.5 0.3 - Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: US Route 9 & South Access 07/21/2026 2028 Build Conditions - Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report GTS Consulting Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 49 50 927 43 42 670 Future Volume (vph) 49 50 927 43 42 670 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 150 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 0 3549 0 1787 3574 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 0 3549 0 1787 3574 Link Speed (mph) 30 55 55 Link Distance (ft) 319 2527 272 Travel Time (s) 7.3 31.3 3.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 0 1043 0 45 720 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 7th TWSC 16: US Route 9 & South Access 07/21/2026 2028 Build Conditions - Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report GTS Consulting Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 50 927 43 42 670 Future Vol, veh/h 49 50 927 43 42 670 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - 150 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 53 54 997 46 45 720 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1470 522 0 0 1043 0 Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 451 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.82 6.92 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.82 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.82 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.51 3.31 - - 2.21 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 119 502 - - 669 - Stage 1 311 - - - - - Stage 2 612 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 111 502 - - 669 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 229 - - - - - Stage 1 311 - - - - - Stage 2 570 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 22.11 0 0.64 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 315 669 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.337 0.068 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 22.1 10.8 - HCM Lane LOS - - C B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.4 0.2 -