biggars lane landfill expansion environmental assessment€¦ · r.j. burnside & associates...

Draft

Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Transportation Impact Study

County of Brant 26 Park Avenue Burford, ON N0E 1A0

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 332 Lorne Avenue East Stratford ON N5A 6S4 CANADA

January 2018 300036031.0000

Draft

County of Brant i Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300036031.0000 036031_Transportation_Report.docx

Distribution List

No. of

Hard

Copies

PDF Email Organization Name

Yes Yes County of Brant

Record of Revisions

Revision Date Description

0 September 14, 2017 Initial Draft Submission to County of Brant

1 December 19, 2017 Second Draft Submission to County of Brant

2 January 17, 2018 Third Draft Submission to County of Brant

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Report Prepared By:

Cody Raposo, EIT Transportation Engineer-in-Training CJR:ls

Report Reviewed By:

Henry Centen, P.Eng.

Senior Transportation Engineer

HBC:ls

Draft

County of Brant ii

Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


Executive Summary

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) has been retained by the County of Brant

(County) to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to obtain approval from

the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for the expansion to

the Biggars Lane Landfill (Landfill). The County undertook the County of Brant Solid

Waste Disposal Future Needs Study (Stantec Consulting Ltd., May 2011), which

identified the expansion of the Landfill as the preferred alternative to address future solid

waste disposal needs through 2050 to dispose of solid waste generated within the

County after the current Landfill reaches it capacity (estimated by 2021). The County

subsequently submitted a Terms of Reference (TOR) to the MOECC which identified the

process that the County would follow in the completion of the EA. As one of the

technical studies required by this process, Burnside has completed this Transportation

Impact Study (TIS), to review the transportation impacts associated with expanding the

Landfill and continuing its operations through horizon year 2050.

Traffic impacts have been assessed under existing (2017) and future (2050) traffic

conditions.

The proposed expansion is forecast to generate total two-way traffic (by 2050) of about

41 vehicles per hour (vph) in the AM peak hour on Saturdays, 15 vph in the AM peak

hour on weekdays, and 5 vph in the PM peak hour on weekdays. Forecast traffic

volumes have also included growth in background traffic in this area, which was

assumed in this TIS to be 1.8% per annum (compounded).

Impacts have been assessed at the primary intersections and roadways that provide a

connection for traffic travelling between the arterial roads and the Landfill. Based on the

analysis completed, the following primary conclusions and recommendations are made

in this study:

Existing Traffic Conditions

• The warrants are met for a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane

at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road. The collision rate at this

intersection averaged 1.82 collisions/year over the past 5 years.

• The collision rate at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road / Hagan

Road averaged 1.45 collisions/year over the past 5 years.

• The collision rate on the segment of Cockshutt Road, between Burtch Road and

Hagan Road averaged 4.73 collisions/year over the past 5 years.

Draft

County of Brant iii

Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


• All intersections and roadways reviewed are forecast to have acceptable traffic

operations under existing (2017) conditions.

Future (2050) Traffic Conditions

• The warrants continue to be met for a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound

left-turn lane at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road, with increased

storage lengths being required if the intersection remains unsignalized. However,

some traffic movements at this intersection are forecast to be poor (high delays, long

queues). Possible mitigation work may include signalization and the addition of a

northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane. Signal warrants are not

met at this intersection under 2050 total traffic conditions; however, signals may still

be justified if traffic operations are deemed to be poor enough.

• An increase in the southbound left-turn lane storage is warranted at the intersection

of Cockshutt Road / Indian Line, if the intersection remains usignalized. Some traffic

movements at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Indian Line are forecast to be

poor (high delays, long queues). Possible mitigation work may include signalization

and the addition of a westbound right-turn lane. Signal warrants are not met at this

intersection under existing traffic conditions; however, signals warrants are met

under the forecast 2050 total and background traffic conditions.

• An increase in the westbound left-turn lane storage is warranted at the intersection of

Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road / Hagan Road. Significant queuing is also forecast

to occur at this intersection. Signal warrants are not met at this intersection under

existing traffic conditions; however, signals warrants are met under the forecast 2050

total and background traffic conditions.

• Some traffic movements at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road /

Hagan Road are forecast to be poor. Possible mitigation work may include

signalization and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane.

• Cockshutt Road is the only road in the study area that may warrant widening to

provide additional capacity, through horizon year 2050.

• It is recommended that future traffic planning studies within the Study Area consider

traffic operations at all locations where mitigation work has been identified as

potentially being required to confirm if, or when, improvements should be

implemented.

• Roundabout controls may be considered, in lieu of signalization, for those

intersections that meet warrants for improved traffic controls.

Draft

County of Brant iv Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


• It is forecast that the minimal increase in traffic volumes from the Landfill expansion

will not significantly impact the traffic operations or collision rates in the study area.

• All of the other intersections and roadways reviewed are forecast to have acceptable

traffic operations through horizon year 2050.

• It has been identified that Hagan Road intersects Biggars Lane / Landfill Access

intersection at a significant skew angle. There has only been one collision at this

location over the past five years and the intersection is forecast to have traffic

operations that are very good (i.e., based on capacity and delay).

Impact of Waste Disposal Alternatives on Traffic Operations

The choice of expansion alternatives for the Landfill will not significantly change the

forecast traffic impacts from the landfill operations.

The available cover material from the site grading operations represents only a small

percentage of the cover material requirement, and therefore has little impact on the

importation requirements of cover material. Importation of cover material may occur

from time-to-time, however, the traffic associated with this operation is considered to be

short-term and not considered to be the design condition for determining mitigation

requirements to address peak hour traffic on the road network.

For the treatment options that require the trucking of leachate to area Water Pollution

Control Plants, the average number of trucks forecast for this operation is forecast to be

very low (i.e., 3 to 9 trucks per day). While there may be periods where this truck

volume increases, due to seasonal fluctuations of the on-site leachate generation, the

maximum volumes would only likely generate 1 or 2 vehicles during the peak hour

periods. Therefore, the additional traffic volumes generated by leachate haulage would

have a minimal effect on traffic in the peak hour periods.

The County’s existing road network provides sufficient truck route connections between

the waste collection zones and the Landfill. It is assumed that appropriate detour routes

will be established via the provincial and County road network in the event that short-

term road closures to the County’s primary roads are required.

Draft

County of Brant v Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


Aircraft-Bird Hazard Assessment

All three existing runways at the Brantford Municipal Airport, located approximately 10

km north of the Biggars Lane Landfill, were analyzed to determine if the Landfill was

located within any of the runway’s Airport Bird Hazard Zones (ABHZ). The vertical

distance above ground level of aircraft as they approach and depart a runway, and the

flight paths of birds as they ascend/descend to reach their destination (in this case the

Landfill) are primary considerations used to develop a runway’s ABHZ. The analysis

indicates that the Landfill does not lie within any of the ABHZ of Brantford Municipal

Airport’s three runways.

Draft

County of Brant vi Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Description ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Site Overview ............................................................................................ 3

1.4 Background Information ............................................................................. 4

2.0 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 5 2.1 County Landfill Site Operations.................................................................. 5

2.2 Site Area Road Network ............................................................................ 6

2.3 Other Developments and Proposed Road Improvements .........................11

3.0 Background Traffic Forecasts ........................................................................ 12 3.1 Study Horizon Periods ..............................................................................12

3.2 Road Connections and Haul Routes .........................................................12

3.3 Time Period for Traffic Analysis ................................................................13

3.4 Traffic Count Data.....................................................................................13

3.5 Seasonal Fluctuations of Traffic Volumes .................................................13

3.6 Traffic Growth Factors ..............................................................................13

3.7 Forecast Background Traffic .....................................................................14

4.0 Development Traffic Forecasts and Total Traffic Forecasts ......................... 17 4.1 Development Traffic Generation ...............................................................17

4.2 Trip Distribution ........................................................................................18

4.3 Forecast Total Traffic ................................................................................20

5.0 Traffic Impact Analysis .................................................................................... 22 5.1 Analysis Criteria and Approach .................................................................22

5.2 Turn Lane Warrants ..................................................................................22

5.2.1 Left-Turn Lane Requirements........................................................ 22

5.2.2 Right-Turn Lane Requirements ..................................................... 27

5.3 Operational Level of Service .....................................................................27

5.4 Intersection Queuing .................................................................................34

5.5 Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................................36

5.6 Link Volume Considerations .....................................................................36

5.7 Collision Analysis ......................................................................................37

5.8 Geometric Considerations ........................................................................39

6.0 Traffic Impact Considerations of Identified Alternatives for On-Site Waste Disposal Facilities ............................................................................................ 41

7.0 Haul Routes ...................................................................................................... 43

8.0 Aircraft-Bird Hazard Assessment ................................................................... 44

9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 52

Draft

County of Brant vii Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


Tables

Table 1.1 – Biggars Lane Landfill Waste Quantities Received (2015 Annual Report,

Biggars Lane Landfill Site, Stantec Consulting Ltd., April 25, 2015) ................................ 3

Table 4.1 – Forecast of Total Trip Generation from Proposed Landfill Expansion ..........18

Table 5.1 – Existing (2017) Traffic Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis .............................22

Table 5.2 – Future Total (2050) Traffic Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis .......................25

Table 5.3 – Traffic Operation Parameters (Highway Capacity Manual) ..........................28

Table 5.4 – Existing (2017) Intersection Operations ......................................................28

Table 5.5 – Background (2050) Intersection Operations ................................................30

Table 5.6 – Total (2050) Intersection Operations (Including Improvement Scenarios) ...31

Table 5.7 – Summary of 95th Percentile Queues (2050 Total Traffic) .............................34

Table 5.8 – Roadway Link Capacity Analysis ................................................................36

Table 5.9 – Intersection Collision Summary ...................................................................38

Table 5.10 – Road Segment Collision Summary ...........................................................38

Table 8.1 – Bird Hazard Zone Dimensions, According to Aircraft Types (Airport Bird

Hazard Risk-Assessment Process, Transport Canada, 2012) .......................................47

Figures

Figure 1 – Landfill Site Location ..................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 – County of Brant Transportation Plan Showing Local Study Area ................... 7

Figure 3 – Existing Traffic Controls & Lane Configurations in the Study Area ................10

Figure 4 – Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes ....................................................................15

Figure 5 – 2050 Background Traffic Volumes ................................................................16

Figure 6 – Development Traffic from Proposed Landfill Expansion ................................19

Figure 7 – 2050 Total Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................21

Figure 8 – Primary Bird Hazard Zone (Transport Canada).............................................45

Figure 9 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone (Transport Canada) ........................................46

Figure 10 – Category B Event Zone (Transport Canada) ...............................................47

Figure 11 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone in Relation to the Main (5,000 ft.) Runway at

the Brantford Municipal Airport ......................................................................................49

Figure 12 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone in Relation to the 2,600 ft. Runway Running

Approximately North-South at the Brantford Municipal Airport .......................................50

Figure 13 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone in Relation to the 2,600 ft. Runway Running

Northwest-Southeast at the Brantford Municipal Airport ................................................51

Appendices

Appendix A Traffic Turning Movement Count (TMC) Data

Appendix B Traffic Operations (Synchro Reports)

Appendix C Traffic Signal Warrants

Draft

County of Brant viii Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


Disclaimer

In the preparation of the various instruments of service contained herein, R.J. Burnside

& Associates Limited was required to use and rely upon various sources of information

(including but not limited to: reports, data, drawings, observations) produced by parties

other than R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. For its part R.J. Burnside & Associates

Limited has proceeded based on the belief that the third party/parties in question

produced this documentation using accepted industry standards and best practices and

that all information was therefore accurate, correct and free of errors at the time of

consultation. As such, the comments, recommendations and materials presented in this

instrument of service reflect our best judgment in light of the information available at the

time of preparation. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, its employees, affiliates and

subcontractors accept no liability for inaccuracies or errors in the instruments of service

provided to the client, arising from deficiencies in the aforementioned third party

materials and documents.

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited makes no warranties, either express or implied, of

merchantability and fitness of the documents and other instruments of service for any

purpose other than that specified by the contract.

Draft

County of Brant 1 Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment – Transportation Impact Study January 2018


1.0 Introduction

The County of Brant (County) is in the process of undertaking an Environmental

Assessment (EA) to obtain additional landfill capacity for the County at the Biggars Lane

Landfill. The EA process has been divided into three separate phases. Phase 1

involved the preparation of the Terms of Reference (TOR), which was completed by

Stantec Consulting Ltd. in March 2014. The TOR was approved by the Minister of the

Environment and Climate Change on May 15, 2016. Phase 2 involved identifying four

alternative methods that could provide the necessary landfill capacity for the period from

2020 to 2050 and work plans to assess each of these alternatives. Phase 2 was

completed by Golder Associates and is documented in their Report on Phase 2 Activities

(May 2016, Revised October 2016), herein referred to as the Phase 2 Report. R.J.

Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) was retained to implement Phase 3 of the EA

process on behalf of the County, which consisted of completion of the EA process and

obtaining EA Act approval for the landfill expansion.

This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) identifies the transportation impacts associated

with the proposed expansion and demonstrates how the subject lands can be serviced

with transportation infrastructure to meet the site options associated with the proposed

expansion.

Burnside gratefully acknowledges the assistance and contributions from the staff of the

County of Brant and Brantford Municipal Airport in the preparation of this study.

1.1 Site Description

The landfill site is located at 128 Biggars Lane in the County of Brant, east of Mount

Pleasant as shown on Figure 1. The site currently comprises a 20.4 hectare fill area

within the 91.18 hectare site (property). The site operates under Ministry of the

Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Amended Environmental Compliance

Approval (ECA) number A100301.

The surrounding land uses are as follows:

• North: Agricultural lands. The agricultural lands are bounded to the north by Burtch

Road (County Road 26; a two-lane “Rural Collector” road).

• South: Hagan Road (a two-lane “Rural Local” road), Fescue’s Edge Golf Club and

woodlots.

• East: Agricultural lands. The agricultural lands are bounded to the east by Cockshutt

Road (County Road 4; a two-lane “Rural Arterial” road).

• West: Agricultural lands and Biggars Lane (a two-lane “Rural Local” road).

Draft



Figure 1 – Landfill Site Location

1.2 Study Area

In accordance with the approved TOR, there are three generic study areas that have

been established for the purposes of the EA: the Regional, Local and Site Study Areas.

These three study areas are shown on Figure 1. The Regional Study Area, highlighted

in yellow, encompasses the entire County of Brant1. The Local Study Area, highlighted

in green, extends approximately 500 m in all directions beyond the landfill site property.

The Site Study Area, indicated by the red boundary, comprises the 91.18 ha landfill site

property.

1 The boundary between the County of Brant and the City of Brantford changed on January 1, 2017. This boundary change has been recognized in our assessment of the Regional Study Area.

Draft



1.3 Site Overview

The County proposes to expand the existing Landfill to meet their solid waste disposal

needs until horizon year 2050. If no action is taken, it is anticipated that the Landfill will

reach its capacity in approximately 2021.

The Biggars Lane Landfill is currently the only landfill that is operating in the County.

Operations at the Burford Landfill ceased in September 1998, and there is currently no

waste being brought to the Burford Landfill Site. The Paris Landfill (located

approximately 18 km northwest of the Biggars Lane Landfill) currently operates as a

waste transfer station, a drop-off depot for recycling, and a biosolids storage facility.

A total of 11,959 tonnes of waste was brought to the Landfill in 2015, along with 15,673

tonnes of inert fill, for a total of 27,632 tonnes. The average rate of total material (i.e.,

including inert material) arriving at the site over the last 13 years is 23,300 tonnes per

year. The following table summarizes the quantity of waste (excluding inert fill) received

at the Landfill from 2003 to 2015:

Table 1.1 – Biggars Lane Landfill Waste Quantities Received (2015 Annual Report, Biggars Lane Landfill Site, Stantec Consulting Ltd., April 25, 2015)

Year

Municipal

Waste

Collection

(tonnes)

Residential

Waste

Drop-off

(tonnes)

Commercial

Waste

(tonnes)

Industrial

Waste*

(tonnes)

Municipal

Waste

from

Works

(tonnes)

Total*

(tonnes)

2003 7,325 2,610 2,720 5,300 ** 19,000

2004 7,895 2,690 2,420 5,195 ** 18,200

2005 8,000 1,680 2,344 4,858 1,264 18,147

2006 8,108 2,003 3,241 5,198 3,413 21,961

2007 7,838 2,172 2,165 4,189 1,458 17,821

2008 7,826 2,708 2,539 2,843 907 16,825

2009 7,482 3,082 2,087 2,720 2,391 17,763

2010 7,549 3,117 1,857 2,666 2,092 17,281

2011 7,524 3,342 2,392 2,261 721 16,240

2012 7,517 3,194 1,246 3,088 1,416 16,462

2013 7,658 3,253 540 2,886 326 14,664

2014 7,713 3,468 514 1,708 365 13,192

2015 7,668 2,947 259 533 848 11,959 * Excluding inert fill.

** Residential drop-off and municipal works were combined totals.

There is presently one access to the Landfill that is located at the intersection of Biggars

Lane and Hagan Road (east leg).

Draft



1.4 Background Information

The following reports have been reviewed as background for this TIS:

• TP11500E, Wildlife Control Procedures Manual (Transport Canada, 2002).

• The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety (Institute of Transportation

Engineers, 2004).

• TP13549E, Sharing the Skies – An Aviation Industry Guide to the Management of

Wildlife Hazards (Transport Canada, 2004).

• County of Brant Solid Waste Disposal Future Needs Study (Stantec Consulting Ltd.,

May 2011).

• The County of Brant Official Plan (County of Brant, 2012).

• “Appendix B” – Airport Bird Hazard Risk-Assessment Process (Transport Canada,

2012).

• TP1247E, Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes Ninth Ed. (Transport Canada,

2013).

• Proposed Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment to

Secure Additional Landfill Capacity for the County of Brant (Stantec Consulting Ltd.,

March 2014).

• County of Brant Development and Engineering Standards (County of Brant, May

2014).

• Addendum No. 2 to County of Brant Development Charge Background Study Update

(Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., March 2015).

• TP312, Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices 5th Ed. (Transport

Canada, September 2015).

• Development Charges By-Law Number 51-15 (County of Brant, 2015).

• Transportation Master Plan Update (IBI Group, March 2016).

• 2015 Annual Report, Biggars Lane Landfill Site (Stantec, April 2016).

• Consolidation, Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (Government of

Canada [Minister of Justice], amended April 2016).

• Report on Phase 2 Activities, Environmental Assessment to Expand the Biggars

Lane Landfill, County of Brant [including Attachment C-9, Transportation Work Plan]

(Golder Associates, May 2016, updated October 2016).

Draft



2.0 Existing Conditions

2.1 County Landfill Site Operations

The existing Landfill has the following operations:

• Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM

• Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM

• Sunday Closed

• Statutory Holidays Closed to the general population, but open for two hours

to accept curbside collection vehicles.

Emterra Environmental currently provides both curbside waste and recycling collection

for the County’s residents. Curbside waste is collected weekly, whereas recycling is

collected every second week. However, as of November 1, 2017, the County will

assume responsibility for collecting recycling on a weekly basis. The County is broken-

up into five (5) different zones for waste/recycling collection purposes, with each zone

receiving collection on a given day of each week (i.e., Zone 1 every Monday, Zone 2

every Tuesday, etc.). There is currently a limit of five containers of household garbage,

which will be reduced to four containers as of November 1, 2017. There is no limit to the

amount of blue box materials for recycling collection.

For the purposes of this TIS it is assumed that the existing collection schedule will

continue to apply throughout the life of the expanded Landfill. While it is possible that the

County will decide to reduce the number of days or hours that the Landfill is open,

compressing traffic over a short timeframe will not likely have a significant impact on

traffic operations given the relatively low traffic generated by the Landfill during peak

periods.

Waste can also be delivered by County residents and private haulers during all operating

days to the Biggars Lane Landfill or Paris Transfer Station. Typically, the majority of

waste is transported to the Biggars Lane Landfill. Large loads (i.e., more than a fully

loaded pickup truck or equivalent) must be brought to the Biggars Lane Landfill, since

such large loads are not accepted at the Paris Transfer Station. The Paris Transfer

Station currently has the following operations:

• Monday, Wednesday

• Saturday

10:00 AM to 3:00 PM

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

• Tuesday, Thursday, Friday,

Sunday

Closed

• Statutory Holidays Closed

Draft



2.2 Site Area Road Network

The study area includes the transportation facilities linking the Landfill to the adjacent

County roads, as shown on Figure 2.

DraftCOUNTY OF OXFORD

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO

TWP. OF NORTH DUMFRIES

TWP. OF BLANDFORD BLENHEIM

CITY OF BRANTFORD

SIX NATIONS INDIAN RESERVE No. 40

NEW CREDIT INDIAN RESERVE No. 40A

CITY OF HAMILTON

CITY OF HAMILTON

HALD

IMAN

D COU

NTY

NORFOLK COUNTY

COUNTY OF OXFORD

TWP. OF NORWICH

HIGHWAY 403

REST ACRES ROAD

(HIGHWAY24)

BRANT ROAD

HIGH

WAY

24

BRANT COUNTY

ROAD #18

ST. GEORGEROAD

BISHOPSGATE ROAD

MCBAY

R OAD

HARLEYROAD

HIGHWAY #54

VANE

SSA

ROAD

INDIANLINE ROAD

POWERLINE ROADLYNDEN ROAD

KINGSTREET

HIGHWAY #5

MCLEANSCHOOL ROAD

BRANCHTONROAD

SOUR SPRINGSROAD

KEG LANE

COLBORNE

STREET WEST

OAKLAND ROAD

PUTTOWNROAD

AYR ROAD

PAIN

TER R

OAD

PARKROAD NORTHST. GEORGE ROAD

PHELPS ROAD

OAK

PARK ROAD

BRAN

T COU

NTY

ROAD

#22

WHITE SWAN

ROADCOLBORNE

STREET EAST

MIDDLE TOWNLINE

ROAD

BRAN

T COU

NTY

ROAD

#18

PARIS ROAD

GOVERNOR'S ROAD EAST

COCK

SHUT

TRO

AD

NORWICH ROAD

BISHOPSGATE ROAD

HIGHWAY#53

KING EDWARD

STREET

OFFICIAL PLANSCHEDULE B

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

COUNTY BOUNDARYPROVINCIAL HIGHWAYSURBAN ARTERIAL ROADRURAL ARTERIAL ROADURBAN RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROADURBAN EMPLOYMENT COLLECTOR ROADRURAL COLLECTOR ROADURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOCAL ROADURBAN EMPOLYMENT LOCAL ROADRURAL LOCAL ROADPUBLIC LANEACTIVE RAILWAYSFORMER RAILWAYSPROPOSED ROADS (CONCEPTUAL)PROPOSED FUTURE INTERCHANGE (CONCEPTUAL)

LEGEND

0 4 82km

THIS SCHEDULIN CONJUNCENTIRETY, IN

SCHEDULE± E SHOULD BE READ AND INTERPRETEDTION WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN IN ITSCLUDING THE POLICIES AND OTHERS AND APPENDICES OF THE PLAN

JULY 2015

craposo

Text Box

craposo

Text Box

craposo

Text Box

craposo

Snapshot

craposo

Snapshot

craposo

Snapshot

craposo

Text Box

craposo

Text Box

FIGURE 2 - COUNTY OF BRANT TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FROM SCHEDULE B OF OFFICIAL PLAN), WITH DETAILED STUDY AREA ROAD NETWORK BLOWUP (FROM SCHEDULE "R" OF BY-LAW #182-05)

craposo

Polygon

craposo

Polygon

craposo

Polygon

craposo

Text Box

LOCAL STUDY AREA

craposo

Line

craposo

PolyLine

Draft



The following intersections are included in this study:

• Biggars Lane Landfill Access / Biggars Lane / Hagan Road

• Biggars Lane / Elliott Road

• Biggars Lane / Wetmores Road

• Biggars Lane / Burtch Road (County Road 26)

• County Road 26 / Cockshutt Road (County Road 4)

• County Road 26 / Mount Pleasant Road (County Road 24)

• Hagan Road / Cockshutt Road (County Road 4) / Oakland Road (County Road 4)

• Indian Line (County Road 20) / Cockshutt Road (County Road 4)

• Oakland Road (County Road 4) / Highway 24.

Also, the following roadways are reviewed in this study:

• Biggars Lane

• Burtch Road (County Road 26)

• Biggars Lane Landfill Site Access

• Elliott Road

• Wetmores Road

• Hagan Road

• Indian Line (County Road 20)

• Oakland Road (County Road 4)

• Cockshutt Road (County Road 4)

• Highway 24.

Biggars Lane is a two-lane “Rural Local” road under the jurisdiction of the County.

Burtch Road (County Road 26) is a two-lane “Rural Collector” road under the jurisdiction

of the County. It has a posted speed of 60 km/h east of the community of Mount

Pleasant, but changes to a posted speed zone of 80 km/h immediately east of the 60

km/h speed zone.

Elliott Road is a gravel “Rural Local” road under the jurisdiction of the County. It has a

posted speed of 70 km/h.

Wetmores Road is a two-lane “Rural Local” road under the jurisdiction of the County.

Hagan Road is a two-lane “Rural Local” road under the jurisdiction of the County. It has

a posted speed of 70 km/h.

Indian Line (County Road 20) is a two-lane “Rural Arterial” road under the jurisdiction of

the County.

Draft



Oakland Road (County Road 4) is a two-lane “Rural Arterial” road under the jurisdiction

of the County. It has a posted speed of 80 km/h.

Cockshutt Road is a two-lane “Rural Arterial” road under the jurisdiction of the County.

Highway 24 is a two-lane highway under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation

Ontario (MTO). It has a posted speed of 80 km/h in the study area.

The intersection of Oakland Road (County Road 4) and Highway 24 is the only

signalized intersection reviewed in this study. The existing traffic controls and lane

configurations on the road network in the study area have been summarized on Figure

3.

All roadways and intersections identified above as being considered in this study were

based on a review of what was included in the Transportation Work Plan in the Report

on Phase 2 Activities, Environmental Assessment to Expand the Biggars Lane Landfill,

County of Brant (Golder Associates, May 2016, updated October 2016). Certain

roadways and intersections to the west of Biggars Lane were not included in this study,

such as CKPC Road and King Street North, since they were neither identified in the

Transportation Work Plan nor considered by Burnside to be significantly impacted by the

operations at the Landfill. In particular, Highway 24 is assumed to accommodate the

majority of traffic travelling north-south to the west of the Landfill.

The intersection of Oakland Road and King Street was signalized in December 2017.

However as identified previously this intersection was not assessed for traffic impacts in

this TIS since it was not identified in the Transportation Work Plan as one of the

intersections to be considered, nor does Burnside foresee any significant impacts at this

intersection as a result of expanding Biggars Lane Landfill.

Draft



2.3 Other Developments and Proposed Road Improvements

The County’s Transportation Master Plan Update (IBI Group, 2016) indicates several

improvements along Highway 403, approximately 15 kilometres northwest of the Landfill.

Highway 403 runs east-west through the County and the City of Brantford. The

improvements recommended that have been confirmed to be planned for

implementation by the County are the following:

• Upgrade/improve the ramps at the existing Highway 403 and Rest Acres Road /

Highway 24 interchange. IBI Group identified the need for a second southbound

through lane, as well as a second westbound left-turn (E-N/S). The County has

confirmed that they plan to upgrade the interchange in 2018.

• Construct an interchange at the location of the Bishopsgate Road crossing over

Highway 403. The interchange will consist of ramps connecting Bishopsgate Road to

Highway 403, which will provide an alternate route for traffic to access Highway 403.

The County has confirmed that they plan to construct the interchange in 2020.

No other developments or proposed road improvements that will directly impact traffic

operations in the local study area have been identified.

Draft



3.0 Background Traffic Forecasts

3.1 Study Horizon Periods

The Transportation Work Plan (Golder Associates, 2016) identified the following three

life cycle stages for consideration:

• Construction Phase

• Operations (up to 2050) – regular disposal activities over the course of the operating

life of the Landfill, including the progressive construction of new disposal cells.

• Closure/Post-closure (post-2050) – leachate management, landfill gas management,

monitoring and maintenance over the contaminating lifespan of the Landfill.

For the purpose of this study it has been assumed that the Landfill operations will expire

in horizon year 2050, which is consistent with the assumptions made in the

Transportation Work Plan. The Landfill will continue to generate more traffic as the

population of the County grows. A full 33-year planning period has been considered,

since the Landfill is proposed to operate until 2050, which will represent the worst-case

condition for traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways (i.e., the highest growth potential

for both landfill and background traffic).

Considering the life cycle stages of the Landfill noted above, the following study horizons

(cumulatively) are considered appropriate for consideration of traffic impacts:

• Horizon Year 2017 – Existing Conditions

Existing background conditions.

• Horizon Year 2050 – Total Traffic Conditions (33 Year Horizon)

Addition of background traffic growth.

Addition of development traffic after full expansion of the Landfill (i.e., growth of

landfill traffic to 2050).

3.2 Road Connections and Haul Routes

It has been assumed that the existing Landfill access (at the intersection of Biggars Lane

and Hagan Road) will continue to be the only access to the Landfill throughout the entire

life of the Landfill (i.e., through horizon year 2050).

The haul routes to/from the Biggars Lane Landfill are not specified, however the site is

well connected to the collection zones throughout the County via a network of rural and

urban higher order roads (i.e., collector, highway and arterial roads), as shown on Figure

2. An enlargement is included on Figure 2 to show the areas that are subject to half load

restrictions (i.e., restrictions in the Spring) in the immediate area of the Biggars Lane

Landfill.

Draft



3.3 Time Period for Traffic Analysis

The time periods selected for traffic analysis are based on the type of development

proposed. The peak traffic periods considered in this study, for landfill site impacts,

include the AM and PM peak hours of the traffic on the adjacent roadways on weekdays

and the peak hour of the Landfill site generated traffic on Saturdays. These peak periods

capture the variability of the operating conditions at the Landfill.

3.4 Traffic Count Data

Burnside’s sub-consultant Ontario Traffic Inc. (OTI) conducted Turning Movement

Counts (TMCs) at all intersections in the study area in late May and early June 2017. At

each of the nine (9) intersections in the study area, OTI collected counts on a weekday

between the hours of 7 AM to 10 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM, as well as on a Saturday

between 9 AM and 12 PM. All counts were reported at 15-minute intervals and classified

according to cars, medium trucks, heavy trucks, pedestrians, and cyclists. Summaries of

the traffic count data collected by OTI have been compiled in Appendix A.

3.5 Seasonal Fluctuations of Traffic Volumes

With regards to the total amount of waste received at the Biggars Lane Landfill in 2015

(excluding inert fill), it appears that the month with the highest volume of waste received

was in June (1,383 tonnes), with the second highest month being May (1,234 tonnes).

Given that the traffic count data was obtained at all intersections in the study area in late

May/early June 2017, it can be assumed that the count data reflects the peak seasonal

landfill site generated traffic volumes. Given the isolated location of the Landfill, in

relation to recreational or densely populated areas, it can be assumed that the traffic

counts taken by OTI represent peak seasonal conditions, and therefore these counts

have been used for analysis purposes in this TIS.

3.6 Traffic Growth Factors

Traffic growth on roads in the study area will primarily be based on growth in the County.

At this time, there are no development plans within the County that will have any

significant impact on traffic growth in the study area. The population growth projections

in the following documents were reviewed to assist in estimating traffic growth in the

study area:



March 2014).

• County of Brant Official Plan (County of Brant, 2012).

• Development Charge Background Study and Proposed By-Law (Watson &

Associates, July 2014).

Draft



• Transportation Master Plan Update (IBI Group, March 2016).

The Official Plan indicates that the population of the County is estimated to increase

from 38,400 in 2006 to 47,000 in 2031, which represents an overall increase of 35%

over this 25-year period. This equates to a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of

0.81% over the 25-year period. However, the Transportation Master Plan notes that

when incorporating the generally higher employment growth forecasts, it is estimated

that AM peak hour auto trip growth will increase from 28,300 trips in 2011 to 40,400 trips

in 2031, representing a 42% increase (or 1.80% CAGR). Population growth projections

that were summarized in the Proposed Terms of Reference for an Individual

Environmental Assessment to Secure Additional Landfill Capacity for the County of

Brant estimate that the population in the County will increase from 38,208 in 2011 to

57,660 in 2050, representing a 1.06% CAGR. An annual population growth rate of

approximately 1.34% was applied in the Development Charge Background Study and

Proposed By-Law (Watson & Associates, July 2014) and this study notes that the main

growth area for the County is anticipated to be in the southwest Paris Urban Settlement

Area.

Based on the summary above on the population growth rates applied in various County

studies, a traffic growth rate of 1.80% per annum (compounded) has been applied in this

study to forecast the background traffic for the horizon periods considered in this study.

This growth rate has been applied to the background traffic on all roads in the study

area, and is considered conservative given that it is the same as the maximum annual

growth rate that was used in the studies outlined above and that most of the growth

anticipated is significantly remote from this area. In this respect, any future traffic

planning studies that are undertaken in the area surrounding the Biggars Lane Landfill

should consider if, or when, any of the mitigation works identified in this study may be

warranted.

3.7 Forecast Background Traffic

The existing traffic volumes (horizon year 2017) are summarized on Figure 4. The

forecast future background traffic volumes in horizon year 2050 are summarized on

Figure 5.

Draft



4.0 Development Traffic Forecasts and Total Traffic Forecasts

4.1 Development Traffic Generation

The waste disposal projections in the following documents were reviewed to assist in

estimating the traffic generation from the proposed landfill expansion:

• County of Brant Solid Waste Disposal Future Needs Study (Stantec Consulting Ltd.,

May 2011).



March 2014).

Waste disposal projections at the Landfill were made over a 40-year planning period

(2011-2050) in the Stantec 2011 study. In order to estimate future disposal rates, it was

assumed that the per capita waste disposal rate would remain constant over the entire

planning period. Stantec determined the County’s per capita waste disposal rate in 2009

by dividing the total waste disposed in 2009 by the population in 2009, which equated to

0.474 tonnes/person/year; thus, this per capita disposal rate was used throughout the

planning period. Given that the Stantec 2011 study estimated that the County’s 2050

population will be 57,660, it is estimated that the amount of waste being disposed at the

landfill in 2050 will be approximately 27,330 tonnes per year.

Based on the waste quantity measured in 2012, as reported in the Stantec’s 2014 Terms

of Reference (TOR), the County’s per capital waste disposal rate was calculated to

equate to 0.402 tonnes/person/year. The County’s projected 2050 population in this

TOR was projected to be 61,120. On this basis it can be estimated that the amount of

waste being disposed of at the Landfill in 2050 will be approximately 24,570 tonnes.

The growth rates in the both the 2011 Study and the 2014 TOR equate to a

compounded annual growth rate of approximately 1.06% per annum. Therefore, an

annual growth rate of 1.06% has been applied in this study to estimate future (2050)

traffic generation from the proposed landfill expansion, as shown in the following table.

Draft



Table 4.1 – Forecast of Total Trip Generation from Proposed Landfill Expansion

Compound

Annual

Growth Rate

(CAGR, %)

Horizon

Year

AM Peak Hour (vph) PM Peak Hour (vph)

In Out In Out

Biggars Lane / Hagan Road / Biggars Lane Landfill Access – WEEKDAY

1.06%

2017 6 4 0 2

2050 9 6 2* 3

Biggars Lane / Hagan Road / Biggars Lane Landfill Access – SATURDAY

1.06%

2017 13 16 N/A N/A

2050 18 23 N/A N/A

* Since there were 0 inbound vehicles counted in the 2017 (existing) PM peak hour, there was no existing traffic volume

present that could be compounded. Regardless, a default volume of 2 inbound vehicles was applied in the PM peak hour.

As shown in the above table, the total trip generation (two-way) as a result of the Landfill

expansion on a weekday in 2050 is forecast to be 15 vehicles per hour (vph) in the AM

peak hour and 5 vph in the PM peak hour. On a Saturday in 2050, it is forecast that the

total two-way trip generation will be 41 vph during the peak hour. Assuming that the

peak hour traffic represents 10% of the daily traffic to the Landfill, it is estimated that the

daily traffic may grow to about 150 vehicles per day (vpd) on weekdays and 400 vpd on

Saturdays by year 2050.

4.2 Trip Distribution

The forecast development traffic has been distributed over the road network according to

origin/destination considerations. The traffic entering and exiting the Landfill has been

distributed according to existing traffic patterns at the site (i.e., as per the May/June

2017 traffic counts).

The forecast development traffic volumes (weekday AM and PM peak hours; and

Saturday AM peak hour) are summarized on Figure 6 for horizon year 2050.

Draft



4.3 Forecast Total Traffic

The development traffic is added to the background traffic (including growth in

background traffic) to obtain the forecast total turning movement volumes. The forecast

total traffic volumes (weekday AM and PM peak hours; and Saturday AM peak hour) are

summarized on Figure 7 for horizon year 2050.

Draft



5.0 Traffic Impact Analysis

5.1 Analysis Criteria and Approach

The traffic operations at the intersections in the study area have been assessed based

on the following criteria:

• Turning lane requirements based on Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO)

warrant nomographs and criteria.

• Level of Service (LOS), delay, and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. The LOS is based

on criteria in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), analyzed using Synchro 9

software.

• Queuing (95th percentile).

• Link volume considerations.

• Collision analysis based on collision data provided by the County, and assessed

using tools published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

• Geometric considerations.

Regardless of which landfill expansion alternative is ultimately pursued, the impacts on

the surrounding transportation network are anticipated to be the same. A similar

conclusion was noted in the Transportation Work Plan (Golder Associates, May 2016,

updated October 2016).

5.2 Turn Lane Warrants

5.2.1 Left-Turn Lane Requirements

The warrants for left-turn lanes have been assessed based on MTO nomographs at all

intersections in the study area. The analysis has been based on design speeds that are

20 km/h over the posted speeds. The results of the existing left-turn lane warrant

analysis for all intersections in the study area has been summarized in the following

table.

Table 5.1 – Existing (2017) Traffic Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis

Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road

Design Speed = 100 km/h Time Period = Existing Traffic (2017)

Approach Direction Northbound Southbound

Peak Hours AM PM Saturday AM PM Saturday

Advancing Traffic 580 398 362 256 679 376

Opposing Traffic 256 679 376 580 398 362

Left Turning Traffic 30 48 18 9 48 27

Percentage of Left

Turning Traffic 5.2% 12.1% 5.0% 3.5% 7.1% 7.2%

Draft



Figure Used* EA-22 EA-23 EA-22 EA-22 EA-22 EA-22

Storage Length

Required 25 metres 25 metres

Cockshutt Road & Indian Line


Approach Direction Southbound

Peak Hours AM PM Saturday

Advancing Traffic 286 658 364

Opposing Traffic 457 278 286

Left Turning Traffic 117 178 117

Percentage of Left

Turning Traffic 40.9% 27.1% 32.1%

Figure Used* EA-25 EA-24 EA-25

Storage Length

Required 40 metres

Cockshutt Road/Oakland Road & Hagan Road


Approach Direction Eastbound Westbound





Percentage of Left

Turning Traffic 1.1% 1.5% 2.5% 52.4% 62.0% 54.5%


Storage Length


Biggars Lane & Elliott Road


Approach Direction Northbound





Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 0 metres

Biggars Lane & Wetmores Road



Draft







Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 0 metres

Biggars Lane & Burtch Road


Approach Direction Westbound





Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 0 metres

* Geometric Design Standards (MTO, 1994).

As shown in Table 5.1, the following intersections warrant left-turn lanes (based on MTO

criteria) under existing traffic conditions:

• Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road: both northbound and southbound left-turn lanes with

25 metre storage lengths are warranted.

• Cockshutt Road & Indian Line: a southbound left-turn lane with a 40 metre storage

length is warranted; however, a southbound left-turn lane with a 50 metre storage

length is currently present at this intersection. Thus, no adjustment to the existing

left-turn lane at this intersection is required.

• Cockshutt Road/Oakland Road & Hagan Road: a westbound left-turn lane with a 30

metre storage length is warranted; however, a westbound left-turn lane with a 50

metre storage length is currently present at this intersection. Thus, no adjustment to

the existing left-turn lane at this intersection is required.

As identified above, the only intersection warranting left-turn lanes (under existing

conditions) that do not already exist is the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road.

However, it should be noted that in Section 5.3 of this TIS it is shown that this

intersection operates acceptably under existing traffic conditions; thus, although left-turn

lanes are warranted based on MTO criteria, the intersection currently operates

acceptably without northbound or southbound left-turn lanes.

Draft



The future (Total Traffic 2050) left-turn lane warrant analysis for all intersections in the

study area has been summarized in the following table.

Table 5.2 – Future Total (2050) Traffic Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis


Design Speed = 100 km/h Time Period = Total Traffic (2050)

Approach Direction Northbound Southbound


Advancing Traffic 1,046 717 654 462 1,223 680

Opposing Traffic 462 1,223 680 1,046 717 654


Percentage of Left

Turning Traffic 5.2% 12.0% 4.9% 3.5% 7.0% 7.2%


Storage Length




Approach Direction Southbound


Advancing Traffic 516 1,186 658



Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 70 metres



Approach Direction Eastbound Westbound





Percentage of Left

Turning Traffic 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 52.0% 62.0% 54.2%


Storage Length




Draft








Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 0 metres








Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 0 metres



Approach Direction Westbound





Percentage of Left



Storage Length

Required 0 metres

* Geometric Design Standards (MTO, 1994).

As shown in Table 5.2, the following intersections warrant left-turn lanes (based on MTO

criteria) under future total 2050 traffic conditions:

• Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road: northbound and southbound left-turn lanes with 55

and 40 metre storage lengths are warranted, respectively.

• Cockshutt Road & Indian Line: a southbound left-turn lane with a 70 metre storage

length is warranted. A southbound left-turn lane with a 50 metre storage length is

Draft



currently present at this intersection, therefore an increase in the storage length of

this left-turn lane may be required in the future (i.e., operations at the intersection

should be monitored to determine the need/timing of any improvements).

• Cockshutt Road/Oakland Road & Hagan Road: eastbound and westbound left-turn

lanes with 15 and 70 metre storage lengths are warranted, respectively. A

westbound left-turn lane with a 50 metre storage length is currently present at this

intersection, therefore an increase in the storage length of this left-turn lane may be

required in the future (i.e., operations at the intersection should be monitored to

determine the need/timing of any improvements).

Section 5.3 assesses traffic operations at all intersections in the study area under

existing and future (2050) traffic conditions to determine if more extensive improvements

may be required.

5.2.2 Right-Turn Lane Requirements

MTO guidelines (Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways) note that right turn

lanes or tapers may be considered where right-turn volumes exceed 60 vehicles per

hour (vph) and where right-turning vehicles create a hazard or reduce capacity at an

intersection.

The forecast right-turn volumes in the 2050 total traffic scenario (worst-case) were

reviewed to determine if any intersections warranted consideration for a right-turn lane or

taper. The only free-moving right-turn volume exceeding 60 vph is the northbound right-

turn movement at the Cockshutt Road / Indian Line intersection; a right-turn lane already

exists at this location. Therefore, a right-turn lane or taper is not warranted at any other

intersection in the study area, from a traffic volume perspective (through horizon year

2050).

Right-turn movements by longer trucks may also impact gravel shoulders and require

longer distances for deceleration. Any future traffic planning studies should review right-

turn movements at intersections along the haul routes to the Landfill site at that time,

with consideration being made to install right-turn lanes or tapers if maintenance issues

or deceleration issues are a concern.

5.3 Operational Level of Service

The intersections within the study area have been analyzed using Synchro 9 software,

which uses methodologies based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The Level of

Service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios were determined at all intersections

studied, in addition to specific movements at these intersections. The LOS is a measure

qualifying the amount of delay experienced by motorists.

Draft



The HCM defines LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections as a function of the

average vehicle control delay, as shown in the following table:

Table 5.3 – Traffic Operation Parameters (Highway Capacity Manual)

LOS

Signalized

Intersection Average

Vehicle Control Delay

Unsignalized

Intersection Average

Vehicle Control Delay

Traffic Operations

A < 10 seconds < 10 seconds Acceptable

B 10-20 seconds 10-15 seconds Acceptable

C 20-35 seconds 15-25 seconds Acceptable

D 35-55 seconds 25-35 seconds Minor Congestion

E 55-80 seconds 35-50 seconds Significant Congestion

F > 80 seconds > 50 seconds Improvements

Recommended if Possible

As noted in the above table, it is desirable that turning movements operate at LOS E or

better, and within their capacity.

The detailed Synchro analyses for the subject intersections are included in Appendix B

(existing, background, and total traffic conditions). The following tables summarize the

operations of the signalized and unsignalized intersections that were studied:

Table 5.4 – Existing (2017) Intersection Operations

Intersection & Movement

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Weekday PM Peak Hour

Saturday Peak Hour

v/c Ratio

Level of Service (LOS)

v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


Highway 24 & Oakland Road*

Overall 0.18 B 0.35 B 0.22 B


Eastbound Left-Right

<0.01 A 0.01 A 0.01 A

Hagan Road & Biggars Lane/Landfill Access

Eastbound Through-Right

0.02 A 0.02 A 0.03 A

Westbound Through-Left

<0.01 A <0.01 A 0.02 A

Northbound Left-Right

0.02 A 0.03 A 0.02 A


Northbound Left-Through-Right

0.43 B 0.38 C 0.19 B

Draft






Saturday Peak Hour

v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


Southbound Left-Through-Right

0.03 C 0.24 E 0.04 C



0.01 A 0.01 A 0.01 A


Westbound Left-Right

0.38 C 0.51 C 0.31 B

Mount Pleasant Road & Burtch Road

Eastbound Left-Through-Right

0.07 A 0.08 A 0.09 A

Westbound Left-Through-Right

0.10 A 0.12 A 0.07 A


0.15 A 0.10 A 0.12 A


0.10 A 0.24 A 0.19 A



0.03 A 0.03 A 0.03 A



0.15 C 0.28 D 0.17 C


0.08 B 0.24 D 0.11 B

* Signalized Intersection.

As shown in Table 5.4 above, all intersections in the study area operate acceptably

under existing conditions. It appears some of the individual movements at the Cockshutt

Road / Hagan Road and Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road intersections experience some

congestion, however the low v/c ratios at each of these movements indicates that there

is sufficient capacity to accommodate these movements, and that motorists will

experience minor delays at these stop-controlled movements. It can be assumed that

there will be sufficient gaps in the through traffic at these intersections to allow motorists

at stop-controls to enter the intersection within reasonable timeframes. It was identified

in Section 5.2 of this TIS that northbound and southbound left-turn lanes were warranted

(based on MTO criteria) under existing conditions at the Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road

intersection; however, this analysis indicates that the intersection still operates

acceptably (under existing conditions) without left-turn lanes.

Draft



In order to assess the impact that increases in background traffic will have on the study

area in the anticipated final year of the Landfill’s operating life, background traffic

operations have been assessed in year 2050, and are summarized in Table 5.5. Also,

the increase in trips being generated by the Landfill by horizon year 2050 have been

estimated and added to the forecast increase in background traffic volumes so that total

traffic conditions could be assessed. Traffic operations under total traffic conditions in

2050 have been summarized in Table 5.6.

Table 5.5 – Background (2050) Intersection Operations




Saturday Peak Hour

v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio



Overall 0.33 B 0.65 B 0.41 B



0.01 A 0.02 A 0.01 A



0.04 A 0.04 A 0.05 A


0.01 A <0.01 A 0.03 A


0.04 A 0.05 A 0.04 A



1.02 F

(66.3 s) 6.28

F (>1,000 s)

0.46 C


0.21 F

(60.7 s) >10

F (>1,000 s)

0.18 E



0.02 A 0.02 A 0.02 A



1.34 F

(212.8s) 3.13

F (>1,000 s)

1.07 F (111.2

s)



0.14 A 0.17 A 0.19 A


0.20 A 0.24 A 0.15 A


0.29 A 0.21 A 0.25 A


0.20 A 0.48 B 0.38 B

Draft






Saturday Peak Hour

v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio




0.05 A 0.06 A 0.05 A



0.84 F

(103.3 s) >10

F (>1,000 s)

0.88 F

(119.6s)


0.34 E

(39.2 s) 3.63

F (>1,000 s)

0.48 E


Table 5.6 – Total (2050) Intersection Operations (Including Improvement Scenarios)




Saturday Peak Hour

v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio



Overall 0.33 B 0.65 B 0.41 B



0.01 A 0.02 A 0.01 A



0.05 A 0.04 A 0.06 A


0.02 A 0.01 A 0.06 A


0.04 A 0.05 A 0.05 A



1.03 F

(71.1 s) 6.33

F (>1,000 s)

0.46 C


0.29 F

(78.4 s) >10

F (>1,000 s)

0.26 E

Cockshutt Road/Oakland Road & Hagan Road – WITH IMPROVEMENTS**

Overall 0.51 B 0.72 B 0.43 B

Northbound Left-Through

0.12 B 0.29 C 0.06 B

Northbound Right

0.63 C 0.17 C 0.17 B

Draft






Saturday Peak Hour

v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio


v/c Ratio



0.05 B 0.27 C 0.09 B



0.02 A 0.02 A 0.02 A



1.36 F

(219.6 s) 3.13

F (>1,000 s)

1.08 F

(113.6 s)

Cockshutt Road & Indian Line – WITH IMPROVEMENTS***

Overall 0.73 B 0.78 B 0.53 B

Westbound Left 0.16 C 0.35 C 0.29 B

Westbound Right 0.44 C 0.19 C 0.15 B



0.14 A 0.17 A 0.20 A


0.20 A 0.24 A 0.17 A


0.29 A 0.21 A 0.25 A


0.20 A 0.48 B 0.39 B



0.06 A 0.06 A 0.08 A



0.84 F (104.1

s) >10

F (>1,000 s)

0.89 F (122.5

s)


0.34 E 3.63 F(>1,000

s) 0.48 E

Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road – WITH IMPROVEMENTS****

Overall 0.75 B 0.84 B 0.56 B


0.38 D 0.44 D 0.38 C


0.13 D 0.42 D 0.20 C

Northbound Left 0.09 A 0.58 C 0.09 A

Northbound Through

0.81 B 0.51 A 0.64 B

Southbound Left 0.08 A 0.18 A 0.13 A

Southbound Through

0.37 A 0.90 C 0.62 B


** Improvements include: semi-actuated signalization, and an exclusive northbound right-turn lane.

Draft



*** Improvements include: semi-actuated signalization, and an exclusive westbound right-turn lane.

**** Improvements include: semi-actuated signalization, an exclusive northbound left-turn lane, and an exclusive

southbound left-turn lane.

As shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.6 above, movements at several intersections in the study

area appear to have very high delays and v/c ratios under both 2050 background and

total traffic conditions. Since the same movements that are deemed very poor under

background traffic conditions are similarly very poor under total traffic conditions, it

should be noted that the anticipated minor increases in traffic on the road network as a

result of the Landfill expansion does not have any significant effect on the traffic

operations on the road network in this area.

Improvement scenarios have been modelled under 2050 total traffic conditions at the

following intersections:

• Cockshutt Road/Oakland Road & Hagan Road

• Cockshutt Road & Indian Line

• Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road.

At the intersection of Cockshutt Road and Hagan Road, the improvement scenario that

was modelled includes signals and the addition of an exclusive northbound right-turn

lane. The intersection, without implementing any improvements, is forecast to operate

with its northbound and southbound movements experiencing delays exceeding 1,000

seconds and v/c ratios exceeding 6.33 (in the PM peak hour). Given that the intersection

has high northbound right-turn volumes, it can be seen that modelling the intersection

with the aforementioned improvements will result in all movements at the intersection

being LOS C or better and v/c ratios less than 0.75.

At the intersection of Cockshutt Road and Indian Line, the improvement scenario that

was modelled includes signals and the addition of an exclusive eastbound right-turn

lane. The intersection, without implementing any improvements, is forecast to operate

with its westbound movement experiencing delays exceeding 1,000 seconds and a v/c

ratio of 3.13 (in the PM peak hour). Modelling the intersection with the aforementioned

improvements will result in all movements at the intersection being LOS C or better and

acceptable v/c ratios (less than 0.80).

At the intersection of Cockshutt Road and Burtch Road, the improvement scenario that

was modelled includes signals, an exclusive northbound left-turn lane, and an exclusive

southbound left-turn lane. The intersection, without implementing any improvements, is

forecast to operate with its eastbound and westbound movements experiencing delays

exceeding 1,000 seconds and v/c ratios exceeding 3.63 (in the PM peak hour).

Modelling the intersection with the aforementioned improvements will result in all

movements at the intersection being LOS D or better and acceptable v/c ratios (less

than or equal to 0.90).

Draft



5.4 Intersection Queuing

The 95th percentile queues in the study area have been summarized in the following

table (under 2050 total traffic conditions).

Table 5.7 – Summary of 95th Percentile Queues (2050 Total Traffic)

Intersection Movement*

Turn

Bay

Length

(m)

95th Percentile Queue Length (m)

AM Peak PM Peak Saturday

Peak

Highway 24 &

Oakland Road

EB Left 40 10.6 13.2 13.0

WB Left 85 14.8 40.8 24.3

NB Left 90 1.6 3.0 2.5

NB Right 90 6.1 7.4 6.2

SB Left 100 4.3 4.6 7.3

SB Right 85 3.2 6.1 4.4

Biggars Lane &

Elliott Road EB Left-Right N/A 0.2 0.4 0.3

Cockshutt Road /

Oakland Road &

Hagan Road

EB Through-

Left N/A 0.1 0.0 0.2

WB Left 50 4.4 21.2 0.24

WB Through-

Right N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0

NB Through-

Left-Right N/A 125.9

Error (i.e.,

very high) 18.4

SB Through-

Left-Right N/A 8.0

Error (i.e.,

very high) 7.2

Cockshutt Road /

Oakland Road &

Hagan Road WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

EB Through-

Left N/A 55.1 42.5 38.0

WB Left 50 21.1 57.5 22.2

WB Through-

Right N/A 20.6 31.9 20.5

NB Through-

Left N/A 9.2 15.3 4.8

NB Right N/A 36.3 16.8 14.8

SB Through-

Left-Right N/A 5.1 14.7 6.8

Biggars Lane &

Wetmores Road

EB Left-Right

N/A

0.5 0.4 0.4

NB Through-

Left 0.1 0.0 0.1

SB Through-

Right 0.0 0.0 0.0

Draft



Intersection Movement*

Turn

Bay

Length

(m)

95th Percentile Queue Length (m)

AM Peak PM Peak Saturday

Peak

Cockshutt Road &

Indian Line

WB Left-Right N/A 145.5 Error (i.e.,

very high) 94.4

NB Through N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0

NB Right 20 0.0 0.0 0.0

SB Left 50 9.7 11.6 6.6

SB Through N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cockshutt Road &

Indian Line WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

WB Left N/A 11.9 19.4 15.3

WB Right N/A 30.0 16.4 13.9

NB Through N/A 183.4 77.0 62.6

NB Right 20 9.7 8.3 9.0

SB Left 50 28.4 26.3 16.0

SB Through N/A 32.6 151.8 41.0

Biggars Lane &

Burtch Road

EB Through-

Right

N/A

0.0 0.0 0.0

WB Through-

Left 0.1 0.4 0.2

NB Left-Right 1.4 1.6 1.9

Cockshutt Road &

Burtch Road

EB Through-

Left-Right

N/A

39.8 Error (i.e.,

very high) 122.5

WB Through-

Left-Right 10.5

Error (i.e.,

very high) 40.3

NB Through-

Left 1.3 4.5 1.0

SB Through-

Left 0.6 2.6 1.5

Cockshutt Road &

Burtch Road WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

EB Through-

Left-Right

N/A

20.6 27.4 16.6

WB Through-

Left-Right 11.6 26.4 12.4

NB Left 4.7 16.8 3.4

NB Through 245.1 96.3 109.5

SB Left 2.0 7.2 4.6

SB Through 57.4 329.3 111.4 * NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound.

As can be seen in the above table, significant queuing occurs for certain movements at

the following intersections under 2050 total traffic conditions:

• Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road

Draft



• Cockshutt Road & Indian Line

• Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road & Hagan Road.

Under the improvement scenarios outlined previously, it can be seen that all 95th

percentile queue lengths are reduced to reasonable levels. Therefore, it can be

concluded that the three aforementioned intersections should be considered in future

traffic planning studies to determine if any queuing issues develop that require

remediation.

5.5 Signal Warrant Analysis

Signal warrants were reviewed at the intersections that were assessed in Section 5.3

under various improvement scenarios. The signal warrant criteria applied in this analysis

was based on the parameters outlined in Justification 7 (Projected Volumes) of the

Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12 (Government of Ontario, March 2012). All detailed traffic

signal warrant data and analysis can be found in Appendix C. The following list

summarizes the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis.

• Cockshutt Road (County Road 4) & Burtch Road (County Road 26): signal warrants

are not forecast to be met at this intersection under 2050 total traffic conditions.

• Cockshutt Road (County Road 4) & Indian Line (County Road 20): signal warrants

are forecast to be met at this intersection under 2050 total and background traffic

conditions. Signal warrants are not met at this intersection under existing (2017)

traffic conditions.

• Cockshutt Road (County Road 4) & Hagan Road: signal warrants are forecast to be

met at this intersection under 2050 total and background traffic conditions. Signal

warrants are not met at this intersection under existing (2017) traffic conditions.

5.6 Link Volume Considerations

For the purpose of assessing the capacity of roads in the study area, it has been

assumed that the roadway capacities of arterial, collector, and local roads are 1,000

vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl), 650 vphpl, and 350 vphpl, respectively. The utilization

of roadways as a function of their capacity has been determined for all roads in the study

area in horizon year 2050 (total traffic conditions), and have been summarized below.

Table 5.8 – Roadway Link Capacity Analysis

Road Capacity (vph*) AM Peak PM Peak

Saturday

Peak

Per Lane Total vph* Util.** vph* Util.** vph* Util.**

Cockshutt Road 1,000 2,000 1,575 79% 1,919 96% 1,374 69%

Oakland Road 1,000 2,000 504 25% 722 36% 596 30%

Indian Line 1,000 2,000 613 31% 746 37% 591 30%

Draft



Road Capacity (vph*) AM Peak PM Peak

Saturday

Peak

Per Lane Total vph* Util.** vph* Util.** vph* Util.**

Hagan Road 350 700 80 11% 103 15% 69 10%

Wetmores

Road 350 700 27 4% 24 3% 26 4%

Elliott Road 350 700 11 2% 29 4% 20 3%

Burtch Road 650 1,300 226 17% 291 22% 257 20%

Biggars Lane 350 700 79 11% 100 14% 123 18%

Highway 24 1,000 2,000 902 45% 1,560 78% 1,036 52% * Refers to the traffic volume in vehicles per hour. The volumes used in the table are the peak directional volumes on the

corresponding roadways under forecast 2050 total traffic conditions.

** Refers to the roadway’s utilization as a function of its overall capacity (in percent).

As shown in the above table, Cockshutt Road is the only road in the study area that is

projected to be operating near its capacity in horizon year 2050 (estimated 96% in the

PM peak hour). Given the conservative assumptions made in this analysis, the

capacities of this road should be considered in future traffic planning studies to

determine if, or when, additional lane capacity may be warranted.

5.7 Collision Analysis

Collision data for various roads within the vicinity of the Biggars Lane Landfill was

provided by the County for approximately a five-year period between January 1, 2011

and June 30, 2016. A summary of the collisions within the aforementioned time period

on all intersections and road segments in the study area are summarized in Table 5.9

and Table 5.10, respectively.

Draft



Table 5.9 – Intersection Collision Summary

* Animal and alcohol-related accidents are excluded from Table 5.9.

Table 5.10 – Road Segment Collision Summary

**** Animal and alcohol-related accidents are excluded from Table 5.10.

Intersection

********************************************************* NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB Day Night

Landfill Access & Biggars Lane

Hagan Road & Biggars Lane 1 1

Elliot Road & Biggars Lane

Wetmores Road & Biggars Lane

Burtch Road & Biggars Lane

Burtch Road & Cockshutt Road 2 1 3 1 2 1 9 1

Burtch Road & Mount Pleasant Road 1 1 1 1 2

Hagan Road & County Road 4 5 1 1 1 5 3

Rear End Collisions Turning Movements Angle Single Vehicle (excluding animal- and alcohol-related)

Road Segment

********************************************************* NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB Day Night

Biggars Lane 1 1

Burtch Road (Brant County Road 26)** 1 2 2 1 4

Elliot Road

Wetmores Road 1 1

Hagan Road

Oakland Road (Brant County Road 4) 1 1 1 2 1

Cockshutt Road (Brant County Road 4)*** 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 6 4 16 10

** note that although not shown in the table, there were 6 collisions with deer (4 at night and 2 in the day) on Burtch Road between Mount Pleasant Road and Cockshutt Road. 5 of the 6 deer collisions occurred between Biggars Lane and Cockshutt Road.

Single Vehicle (excluding animal- and alcohol-related)

*** note that a significant amount of vechicles travelling EB/NB & SB/WB lost control of their vechicles at the curve on Cockshutt and went into the ditch, particularly under snow/icy conditions. One collision involved a cyclist. Although not shown in the table,

there was also 9 collisions with deer (4 at night and 5 in the day).

AngleRear End Collisions Turning Movements

Draft



As shown in Tables 5.9 and 5.10, the volume of collisions that have occurred at

intersections and road segments in the study area varies significantly; one road segment

has an average of nearly five collisions per year, whereas other intersections/roads have

not had any collisions within the last five years. In particular, the following

intersections/roads in the study area have an average of more than one collision per

year (within the last five-years; and not including animal or alcohol-related collisions):

• Intersection of Burtch Road & Cockshutt Road (average of 1.82 collisions per year)

• Intersection of Hagan Road & Cockshutt Road (average of 1.45 collisions per year)

• Segment of Cockshutt Road between Burtch Road & Hagan Road/Cockshutt Road

(average of 4.73 collisions per year).

From the data provided above, it should be noted that one of the collisions that occurred

along Cockshutt Road involved a cyclist. On the Burtch Road segment, there were six

collisions with deer in the last five years (not included in the above data), of which four

occurred at night and two occurred during the day. On the Cockshutt Road segment,

there were nine collisions with deer in the last five years (not included in the above data),

of which four occurred at night and five occurred during the day.

Due to the nature of the proposed landfill expansion, it has been forecast that there will

be minimal increase in the volume of vehicles travelling to/from the Landfill. Therefore, it

is believed that the slight increase in large trucks and other vehicles travelling to/from the

Landfill will not have a significant impact on collision frequency.

5.8 Geometric Considerations

The intersections in the study area have been reviewed to determine if any geometric

issues exist that may be impacted by the travel routes to/from the Landfill.

Hagan Road is at a significant skew angle at its intersection with the Biggars Lane

Landfill Access and Biggars Lane. As noted previously there has only been one collision

at this intersection between January 2011 and June 2016. The collision was non-fatal

and occurred under nighttime conditions. Base on this low collision rate it does not

appear that the physical configuration at this location is currently a concern. However,

due to its non-standard design, it is recommended that traffic operations continue to be

monitored at this location as landfill operations continue.

As a result of very low traffic volumes on Hagan Road / Biggars Lane, the Landfill

access is forecast to operate very well under existing and future (2050) traffic conditions.

All movements at the intersection operate with a LOS A and v/c ratios that are under

0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that the road alignments at this intersection do not

appear to negatively impact the safety or operations at the access.

Draft



No other geometric deficiencies have been identified at any of the other intersections in

the study area.

Draft



6.0 Traffic Impact Considerations of Identified Alternatives for

On-Site Waste Disposal Facilities

The Report on Phase 2 Activities, Environmental Assessment to Expand the Biggars

Lane Landfill, (Golder Associates, May 2016) identified the following expansion

alternatives for consideration in the Phase 3 Environmental Assessment work:

• Expansion Alternative 1 – Development of a new landfill footprint to the west of the

existing landfill, resulting in a net surplus of 92,000 m3 of material for daily cover

including an engineered low permeability cover.

• Expansion Alternative 2 – Development of a new landfill footprint to the west of the

existing landfill, resulting in a net surplus of 66,000 m3 of material for daily cover

including a base containment design and leachate collection system.

• Expansion Alternative 3 – Development of new landfill footprints to the east and west

of the existing landfill, resulting in a net surplus of 41,000 m3 of material for daily

cover, including an engineered low permeability cover.

• Expansion Alternative 4 – Development of new landfill footprints to the east and west

of the existing landfill, resulting in a net surplus of 78,000 m3 of material for daily

cover, including a base containment design and leachate collection system.

As noted previously, the choice of expansion alternative will not significantly change the

forecasted traffic impacts from the landfill operations. The net on-site surplus material

that may be available from on-site grading operations would only represent a small

percentage of the cover material requirements for the life of the Landfill and therefore

most of the inert cover material will require importation. It is expected that cover material

will be imported periodically, depending on its availability, and stockpiled on-site. While

this may result in a short-term increase of truck traffic volumes to/from the Landfill, such

traffic is not considered to be the design condition for the determination of mitigation


Expansion Alternatives 2 and 4 include an engineered base containment system to

collect the leachate produced by the Landfill. The Report on Phase 2 Activities,

Environmental Assessment to Expand the Biggars Lane Landfill (Golder Associates,

May 2016) identified the following alternatives for the treatment of this leachate:

• Leachate Treatment Option 1 – leachate treatment using the County-owned Paris

Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)

• Leachate Treatment Option 2 – leachate treatment using the County-owned St.

George WPCP

• Leachate Treatment Option 3 – leachate treatment using both of the County-owned

Paris and St. George WPCPs

• Leachate Treatment Option 4 – on-site treatment, with effluent discharge to the

Unnamed Creek.

Draft



Expansion Alternatives 2 and 4 will require transport of the leachate to the WPCPs via

tanker trucks. Preliminary calculations completed in this EA, using the Hydrologic

Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model, have forecast that the average daily

volume of leachate generated by the Landfill by 2050 will be 62.60 m3/day for Alternative

2 and 87.37 m3/day for Alternative 4, during the operating life of the Landfill. This is a

worst-case scenario since the leachate generation will decrease after closure of the

Landfill in 2050.

The typical sizes of tanker trucks that are used for leachate transport range from 10 m3

to 30 m3 capacities. Therefore, on average, this may result in 3 to 9 trucks per day being

required to transport leachate to WPCPs. The maximum daily volume of leachate

requiring transport will also be impacted by the following factors:

• The warmer, wetter months (March to October) will typically have a higher volume of

leachate generated than the colder, drier months (November to February).

• The ability of the WPCPs to receive and assimilate the leachate into their treatment

systems (i.e. leachate volume and quality, time period).

• The extent of leachate storage facilities provided on-site to provide equalization for

the transport rates of the leachate volumes produced.

Based on the above factors it is possible that the number of trucks required to meet

maximum period of leachate generation will double or triple, when compared to the

average requirements.

Even considering the above factors, the overall truck transport requirements may only

add 1 or 2 vehicles to the peak hour traffic. Also, leachate haulage from the site could

be coordinated in the future so that it does not coincide with the peak hours of adjacent

roadway traffic. Therefore, the additional traffic volumes generated by leachate haulage

would have a minimal effect on traffic in the peak hour periods, which are the primary

consideration in this study.

Draft



7.0 Haul Routes

The Biggars Lane Landfill will generate traffic from the contractors retained to provide

the County’s waste collection program and from other private individuals or companies

requiring waste disposal. In addition, the Landfill will generate the need to import cover

material and possibly to export leachate from the site.

The County does not currently specify haul routes for traffic to/from the Landfill.

However, as noted previously, the County road network provides sufficient truck route

connections between the waste collection zones and the Landfill site. The previous

analysis has also confirmed the adequacy of the traffic operations in the immediate area

of the Landfill.

Draft



8.0 Aircraft-Bird Hazard Assessment

The Transportation Work Plan – Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion EA (Golder

Associates, May 2016) identified that the results of the bird survey aspect should be

reviewed, if necessary, in order to forecast potential conflicts at all certified airports

within 15 kilometres of the Biggars Lane Landfill (Landfill). The only airport located within

15 km of the Landfill is the Brantford Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 10

kilometres northwest of the Landfill.

It should be noted that a guideline contained in Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes

Ninth Edition TP1247 (Transport Canada, 2014) specifies that “no bird-attractant land

use should be allowed within an eight-kilometre radius of airport reference points”. The 8

kilometre radius specified is a guideline and therefore not enforceable, but considering

that the Brantford Municipal Airport is located approximately 10 kilometres from the

Landfill, it is outside of the area considered by Transport Canada for new developments

within the vicinity of an airport. However, Transport Canada notes that distance from

airport reference points should not be the only consideration, since certain birds can

routinely fly more than 60 kilometres between roosting sites and attractive food sources.

The publication Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP312)

recommends that garbage-disposal facilities within 15 kilometres of the end of any

runway be either eliminated or prevented unless a bird-hazard study indicates that the

facility is unlikely to create a problem. Thus, since the Landfill is within 15 kilometres of

the Brantford Municipal Airport, a bird-hazard risk assessment for the proposed Landfill

expansion is appropriate.

Putrescible waste landfills are defined by Transport Canada as a ‘High Risk Land Use’

(in terms of risks posed to aircraft in airport-areas). From the document Airport Bird

Hazard Risk-Assessment Process, Airport Bird Hazard Zones (ABHZ) are divided into

four categories, as summarized (paraphrased) below:

1. Primary Bird Hazard Zone – is the area in which aircraft are at or below 1,500

feet Above Ground Level (AGL) during critical phases of the flight. These

altitudes are most populated by hazardous birds, and where bird-aircraft

collisions are most likely to result in a Category A event (“catastrophic loss,

measured as either complete loss of aircraft or the loss of more than one life as a

consequence of a bird strike”). Refer to Figure 8 below for the limits of a Primary

Bird Hazard Zone.

Draft



Figure 8 – Primary Bird Hazard Zone (Transport Canada)

2. Secondary Bird Hazard Zone – a buffer zone beyond the Primary Bird Hazard

Zone that accounts for variations such as environmental conditions, bird

behavior, and pilot technique. Refer to Figure 9 below for the limits of a

Secondary Bird Hazard Zone.

Draft



Figure 9 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone (Transport Canada)

3. Category B Event Zone – this zone defines the area in which Category B events

(“major damage, measured as either significant damage to the airframe, failure of

one or more engines or aircraft systems, serious injury to one or more aircraft

occupants, or the loss of life of no more than one aircraft occupant”) are most

likely to occur. Refer to Figure 10 below for the limits of a Category B Event

Zone.

Draft



Figure 10 – Category B Event Zone (Transport Canada)

4. Special Bird Hazard Zone – activities beyond the first three ABHZ that may also

present hazards. Special Bird Hazard Zones encompass specific land uses that

may regularly attract potentially hazardous species across other zones.

The corresponding dimensions for all of the ABHZ’s outlined above can be found in

Table 8.1 below, which contains dimensions for all ABHZ’s according to the typical types

of aircraft utilizing an airports runway(s). ABHZ dimensions depend on the flight paths for

the critical phases of flights and the aircraft types that use a particular airport. The critical

phases of a flight are all below 1,500 AGL (takeoff, initial climb, approach, landing, and

missed approach).

Table 8.1 – Bird Hazard Zone Dimensions, According to Aircraft Types (Airport Bird Hazard Risk-Assessment Process, Transport Canada, 2012)

Aircraft Type Dimension (metres)

A B C E F G H

FAR 23

Commuter 2,000 9,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 2,000 9,000

Draft



FAR 23

Recreational 1,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 3,000

The Brantford Municipal Airport has three existing asphalt runways; one 5,000 feet long

and two 2,600 feet long. All three runways are 100 feet wide. Staff at the Brantford

Municipal Airport have confirmed that the two 2,600 foot long runways can

accommodate only recreational aircraft (single and twin piston aircraft), whereas the

5,000 foot long runway can accommodate both recreational and commuter aircraft (such

as business jets and commuter airline flights). The 5,000 foot runway has been

assessed in this study as a commuter runway in order to be conservative. Thus,

dimensions for a ‘FAR 23 Commuter’ and a ‘FAR 23 Recreational’ will be used for the

dimension-labelling schema analysis for the 5,000 foot and 2,600 foot runways,

respectively.

The 5,000 foot runway is oriented in the northeast-southwest direction. When applying

the dimensions for a ‘FAR 23 Commuter’ (conservative) in Table 8.1, it can be seen that

the limits of the Primary Bird Hazard Zone are, at most, 4 km east and west of the

centerline of the runway and 9 km north and south of the northernmost/southernmost

points of the asphalt runway. The Secondary Bird Hazard Zone is located, at most, 4 km

farther than the limits of the Primary Bird Hazard Zone (i.e., 8 km east and west of the

centerline; and 13 km north and south of the northernmost/southernmost points of the

asphalt runway). The Category B Event Zone are, at most, 8 km east and west of the

centerline of the runway and 11 km north and south of the northernmost/southernmost

points of the asphalt runway. Since 13 km north/south and 8 km east/west of the runway

are the two largest dimensions in either direction, this area was assessed first to

determine if the Landfill lay within this area (conservative); if it did lay within the area,

then the each of the three Zones would have to be individually assessed. Upon review of

the location of the Landfill in relation to the 5,000 foot long runway, it appears that the

Landfill lies outside of the 13 by 8 km area, as shown in Figure 11 below.

Draft



Figure 11 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone in Relation to the Main (5,000 ft.) Runway at the Brantford Municipal Airport

For the 2,600 foot runway that runs nearly north-south, when applying the dimensions

for a ‘FAR 23 Recreational’ in Table 8.1, it can be seen that the limits of the Primary Bird

Hazard Zone are, at most, 2 km east and west of the centerline of the runway and 3 km

north and south of the northernmost/southernmost points of the asphalt runway. The

Secondary Bird Hazard Zone is located, at most, 2 km farther than the limits of the

Primary Bird Hazard Zone (i.e., 4 km east and west of the centerline; and 5 km north and

south of the northernmost/southernmost points of the asphalt runway). The Category B

Event Zone are, at most, 2.5 km east and west of the centerline of the runway and 4 km

north and south of the northernmost/southernmost points of the asphalt runway. Since 5

km north/south and 4 km east/west of the runway are the two largest dimensions in

either direction (i.e., Secondary Bird Hazard Zone), this area was assessed first to

determine if the Landfill lies within this area. Upon review of the location of the Landfill in

relation to the 2,600 foot long runway running nearly north-south, it appears that the

Landfill lies outside of the 5 by 4 km area, as shown in Figure 12 below.

Draft



Figure 12 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone in Relation to the 2,600 ft. Runway Running Approximately North-South at the Brantford Municipal Airport

For the 2,600 foot runway that runs northwest-southeast, the same dimensions that were

applied for the nearly north-south 2,600 foot runway will be used. Upon review of the

location of the Landfill in relation to the 2,600 foot long runway running northwest-

southeast, it appears that the Landfill lies outside of the 5 by 4 km area, as shown in

Figure 13 below.

Draft



Figure 13 – Secondary Bird Hazard Zone in Relation to the 2,600 ft. Runway Running Northwest-Southeast at the Brantford Municipal Airport

In summary, the Landfill lies outside of all ABHZ’s of the three existing runways at the

Brantford Municipal Airport. Refer to the Biggars Lane Expansion Natural Environment

Report (Burnside, September 2017) for a detailed assessment on the types of birds

typically found within the Study Area.

Draft



9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Traffic impacts have been assessed under existing (2017) and future (2050) traffic

conditions.

The proposed expansion is forecast to generate total two-way traffic (by 2050) of about

41 vehicles per hour (vph) in the AM peak hour on Saturdays, 15 vph in the AM peak

hour on weekdays, and 5 vph in the PM peak hour on weekdays. Forecast traffic

volumes have also included growth in background traffic in this area, which was

assumed in this TIS to be 1.8% per annum (compounded).

Impacts have been assessed at the primary intersections and roadways that provide a

connection for traffic travelling between the arterial roads and the Landfill.

Based on the analysis completed, the following primary conclusions and

recommendations are made in this study:

Existing Traffic Conditions

• The warrants are met for a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane

at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road. The collision rate at this

intersection averaged 1.82 collisions/year over the past 5 years.

• The collision rate at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road / Hagan

Road averaged 1.45 collisions/year over the past 5 years.

• The collision rate on the segment of Cockshutt Road, between Burtch Road and

Hagan Road averaged 4.73 collisions/year over the past 5 years.

• All intersections and roadways reviewed are forecast to have acceptable traffic

operations under existing (2017) conditions.

Future (2050) Traffic Conditions

• The warrants continue to be met for a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound

left-turn lane at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Burtch Road, with increased

storage lengths being required if the intersection remains unsignalized. However,

some traffic movements at this intersection are forecast to be poor (high delays, long

queues). Possible mitigation work may include signalization and the addition of a

northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane. Signal warrants are not

met at this intersection under 2050 total traffic conditions; however, signals may still

be justified if traffic operations are deemed to be poor enough.

• An increase in the southbound left-turn lane storage is warranted at the intersection

of Cockshutt Road / Indian Line, if the intersection remains usignalized. Some traffic

Draft



movements at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Indian Line are forecast to be

poor (high delays, long queues). Possible mitigation work may include signalization

and the addition of a westbound right-turn lane. Signal warrants are not met at this

intersection under existing traffic conditions; however, signals warrants are met

under the forecast 2050 total and background traffic conditions.

• An increase in the westbound left-turn lane storage is warranted at the intersection of

Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road / Hagan Road. Significant queuing is also forecast

to occur at this intersection. Signal warrants are not met at this intersection under

existing traffic conditions; however, signals warrants are met under the forecast 2050

total and background traffic conditions.

• Some traffic movements at the intersection of Cockshutt Road / Oakland Road /

Hagan Road are forecast to be poor. Possible mitigation work may include

signalization and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane.

• Cockshutt Road is the only road in the study area that may warrant widening to

provide additional capacity, through horizon year 2050.

• It is recommended that future traffic planning studies within the Study Area consider

traffic operations at all locations where mitigation work has been identified as

potentially being required to confirm if, or when, improvements should be

implemented.

• Roundabout controls may be considered, in lieu of signalization, for those

intersections that meet warrants for improved traffic controls.

• It is forecast that the minimal increase in traffic volumes from the Landfill expansion

will not significantly impact the traffic operations or collision rates in the study area.

• All of the other intersections and roadways reviewed are forecast to have acceptable

traffic operations through horizon year 2050.

• It has been identified that Hagan Road intersects Biggars Lane / Landfill Access

intersection at a significant skew angle. There has only been one collision at this

location over the past five years and the intersection is forecast to have traffic

operations that are very good (i.e., based on capacity and delay).

Impact of Waste Disposal Alternatives on Traffic Operations

The choice of expansion alternatives for the Landfill will not significantly change the

forecast traffic impacts from the landfill operations.

Draft



The available cover material from the site grading operations represents only a small

percentage of the cover material requirement and therefore has little impact on the

importation requirements of cover material. Importation of cover material may occur

from time-to-time, however the traffic associated with this operation is considered to be

short-term and not considered to be the design condition for determining mitigation


For the treatment options that require the trucking of leachate to area Water Pollution

Control Plants, the average number of trucks forecast for this operation is forecast to be

very low (i.e. 3 to 9 trucks per day). While there may be periods where this truck volume

increases, due to seasonal fluctuations of the on-site leachate generation, the maximum

volumes would only likely generate 1 or 2 vehicles during the peak hour periods.

Therefore, the additional traffic volumes generated by leachate haulage would have a

minimal effect on traffic in the peak hour periods.

The County’s existing road network provides sufficient truck route connections between

the waste collection zones and the Landfill. It is assumed that appropriate detour routes

will be established via the provincial and County road network in the event that short-

term road closures to the County’s primary roads are required.

Aircraft-Bird Hazard Assessment

All three existing runways at the Brantford Municipal Airport, located approximately 10

km north of the Biggars Lane Landfill, were analyzed to determine if the Landfill was

located within each of the runway’s Airport Bird Hazard Zone (ABHZ). The vertical

distance above ground level of aircraft as they approach and depart a runway and the

flight paths of birds as they ascend/descend to reach their destination (in this case the

Landfill) are primary considerations in the approach used to develop a runway’s ABHZ.

The analysis indicates that the Landfill does not lie within any of the ABHZ of Brantford

Municipal Airport’s three runways.

Draft

Ap

pen

dix

A

Appendix A

Traffic Turning Movement Count (TMC) Data

Draft

Ontario Traffic Inc.

Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period

From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

7:45:00

8:45:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700001

Biggars Lane Landfill Access-Biggar

1

1-Jun-17

Weather conditions:

Person(s) who counted:

** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Biggars Lane Landfill Access-Biggar

Heavys Trucks Cars Totals

0 1 16 17


0 1 2 3

1 0 19 20

1 1 21

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

23

40

Biggars Lane

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane Landfill Access

Hagan Rd

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

10

4

0

Cars Trucks Heavys Totals

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 2

4 0 0


5 1 0 6

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

21

0

1

22

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

14

1

0

15

3

0

0

3

17

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

18

40

Comments

Draft


Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period

From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:30:00

17:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700001


1

1-Jun-17

Weather conditions:




0 0 21 21


0 0 0 0

0 0 23 23

0 0 23

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

23

44

Biggars Lane

W

N

E

S


Hagan Rd

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

2

2

0


1 0 0 1

1 0 0 1

2 0 0


0 0 0 0

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

24

0

0

24

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

20

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

20

44

Comments

Draft


Mid-day Peak Diagram Specified Period

From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

9:45:00

10:45:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700010


1

3-Jun-17

Weather conditions:




0 1 27 28


0 0 10 10

0 0 13 13

0 0 23

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

23

51

Biggars Lane

W

N

E

S


Hagan Rd

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

29

16

0


13 0 0 13

3 0 0 3

16 0 0


13 0 0 13

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

16

0

0

16

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

14

1

0

15

3

0

0

3

17

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

18

34

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

8:30:00

9:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700002

Biggars Lane & Elliott Rd

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Biggars Lane runs N/S

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

29

9

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

0

0

0

2

7

9

0

2

7

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

1

19

20


0 0 1 1


0 0 1 1

0 0 4 4

0 0 5

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

5

6

Biggars Lane

Elliott Rd

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

11

2

0

13

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

1

0

0

1

18

1

0

19

19

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

20

33

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:00:00

17:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700002


1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

48

27

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

6

6

0

1

20

21

0

1

26

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

1

19

21


0 0 8 8


0 0 3 3

0 0 5 5

0 0 8

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

8

16

Biggars Lane

Elliott Rd

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

25

1

0

26

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

2

0

0

2

16

1

1

18

18

1

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

20

46

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

11:00:00

12:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700011


1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

38

20

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

2

2

0

0

18

18

0

0

20

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

18

18


0 0 4 4


0 0 3 3

0 0 3 3

0 0 6

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

6

10

Biggars Lane

Elliott Rd

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

21

0

0

21

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

2

0

0

2

15

0

0

15

17

0

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

17

38

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

8:00:00

9:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700003

Biggars Lane & Wetmores Rd

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

30

8

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

1

1

0

1

6

7

0

1

7

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

22

22


0 0 3 3


0 0 8 8

1 1 1 3

1 1 9

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

11

14

Biggars Lane

Wetmores Rd

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

8

3

1

12

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

2

0

0

2

13

0

0

13

16

0

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

16

28

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:00:00

17:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700003


1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

56

29

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

4

4

0

1

23

24

0

1

28

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

4

22

27


0 0 5 5


0 2 5 7

0 0 1 1

0 2 7

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

9

14

Biggars Lane

Wetmores Rd

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

24

1

0

25

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

1

0

0

1

17

2

1

20

18

2

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

21

46

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

9:30:00

10:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700012


1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

37

17

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

3

3

1

0

12

13

2

0

15

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

20

20


0 0 7 7


0 0 5 5

0 0 3 3

0 0 8

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

8

15

Biggars Lane

Wetmores Rd

W

N

E

S

Biggars Lane

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

16

0

1

17

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

3

0

0

3

15

0

0

15

19

0

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

19

36

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

8:00:00

9:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700004

Burtch Rd (CR 26) & Biggars Lane

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Burtch Rd (CR 26) runs W/E


3 1 60 64


0 0 34 34

0 1 8 9

0 1 42

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

43

107

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

Biggars Lane

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

96

52

0


46 1 3 50

2 0 0 2

48 1 3


44 0 0 44

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

10

1

0

11

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

14

0

0

14

10

0

0

10

24

0

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

24

35

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:00:00

17:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700004


1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:




2 3 78 83


1 1 43 45

0 0 17 17

1 1 60

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

62

145

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

Biggars Lane

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

138

82

0


66 2 1 69

13 0 0 13

79 2 1


53 2 1 56

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

30

0

0

30

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

12

1

1

14

10

1

0

11

22

2

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

25

55

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

11:00:00

12:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700013


1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:




0 1 61 62


0 0 37 37

0 0 15 15

0 0 52

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

52

114

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

Biggars Lane

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

99

53

0


47 0 0 47

6 0 0 6

53 0 0


46 0 0 46

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

21

0

0

21

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

14

1

0

15

9

0

0

9

23

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

24

45

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

7:15:00

8:15:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700005

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4) & Burtch Rd (C

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Cockshutt Rd (CR 4) runs N/S

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

837

256

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

3

3

0

10

234

244

0

0

9

9

0

10

246

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

4

576

581


0 1 38 39


1 0 10 11

2 1 8 11

0 2 32 34

3 3 50

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

56

95

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

47

27

0


20 0 0 20

5 1 0 6

1 0 0 1

26 1 0


17 1 2 20

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

267

12

0

279

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

30

0

0

30

546

4

0

550

0

0

0

0

576

4

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

580

859

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:30:00

17:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700005


1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

1065

679

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

2

12

15

0

5

611

616

0

0

48

48

1

7

671

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

18

368

386


1 5 75 81


0 0 11 11

0 0 12 12

0 0 35 35

0 0 58

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

58

139

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

111

50

0


25 1 0 26

17 1 0 18

6 0 0 6

48 2 0


61 0 0 61

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

652

5

0

657

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

46

2

0

48

332

17

0

349

1

0

0

1

379

19

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

398

1055

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

10:30:00

11:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700014


1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

760

376

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

15

15

0

5

329

334

0

0

27

27

0

5

371

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

5

378

384


0 0 42 42


0 1 17 18

0 0 14 14

0 0 22 22

0 1 53

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

54

96

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

98

47

0


32 0 0 32

9 0 0 9

6 0 0 6

47 0 0


51 0 0 51

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

357

5

0

362

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

18

0

0

18

329

4

1

334

10

0

0

10

357

4

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

362

724

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

8:00:00

9:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700006

Mount Pleasant Rd (CR 24) & Burtc

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mount Pleasant Rd (CR 24) runs N/

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

243

77

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

2

9

12

1

0

43

44

0

1

20

21

2

3

72

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

5

3

158

166


1 4 46 51


0 1 25 26

0 0 21 21

0 0 4 4

0 1 50

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

51

102

Mount Pleasant Rd (CR 24)

Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)


East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

124

78

0


37 0 2 39

31 2 0 33

5 0 1 6

73 2 3


45 1 0 46

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

52

0

2

54

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

6

0

0

6

96

2

3

101

4

0

0

4

106

2

3

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

111

165

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:00:00

17:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700006


1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

300

180

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

1

28

29

0

1

106

107

0

1

43

44

0

3

177

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

2

3

115

120


0 2 71 73


1 0 17 18

0 1 26 27

0 0 11 11

1 1 54

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

3

56

129


Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)


East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

162

87

0


41 2 1 44

32 1 0 33

9 1 0 10

82 4 1


73 2 0 75

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

126

2

0

128

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

11

0

0

11

57

1

0

58

4

0

0

4

72

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

1

73

201

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

11:00:00

12:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700015


1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

276

147

2

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

32

32

0

0

90

90

0

0

25

25

0

0

147

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

1

128

129


0 0 68 68


0 0 33 33

0 0 22 22

0 0 13 13

0 0 68

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

1

68

136


Burtch Rd (CR 26)

W

N

E

S

Burtch Rd (CR 26)


East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

109

55

0


24 0 0 24

23 0 0 23

6 2 0 8

53 2 0


54 0 0 54

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

109

2

0

111

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

13

0

0

13

71

1

0

72

7

0

0

7

91

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

92

203

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

7:15:00

8:15:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700007

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)-Oakland Rd (C

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)-Oakland Rd (C

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

28

9

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

8

1

0

0

1

1

0

8

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

1

18

19


0 4 92 96


0 0 2 2

0 8 164 172

1 1 6 8

1 9 172

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

182

278

Hagan Rd

Oakland Rd

W

N

E

S

Cockshutt Rd

Hagan Rd

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

660

191

0


2 0 0 2

86 3 0 89

96 3 1 100

184 6 1


457 11 1 469

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

110

4

2

116

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

6

1

0

7

14

1

0

15

293

3

0

296

313

5

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

318

434

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:45:00

17:45:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700007

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)-Oakland Rd (C

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)-Oakland Rd (C

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

55

30

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

2

2

0

1

15

16

0

1

11

12

0

2

28

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

25

25


0 6 204 210


0 0 2 2

0 6 117 123

0 1 10 11

0 7 129

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

136

346

Hagan Rd

Oakland Rd

W

N

E

S

Cockshutt Rd

Hagan Rd

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

798

524

0


4 0 0 4

192 3 0 195

321 4 0 325

517 7 0


263 11 0 274

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

346

6

0

352

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

10

3

0

13

19

0

0

19

135

4

0

139

164

7

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

171

523

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

10:30:00

11:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700016

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)-Oakland Rd &

1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)-Oakland Rd ru

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

23

12

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

3

3

0

0

6

6

0

0

3

3

0

0

12

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

11

11


0 2 132 134


0 0 4 4

0 2 137 139

0 1 14 15

0 3 155

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

158

292

Hagan Rd

Oakland Rd

W

N

E

S

Cockshutt Rd

Hagan Rd

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

566

286

0


2 0 0 2

126 2 0 128

153 3 0 156

281 5 0


277 3 0 280

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

173

4

0

177

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

3

0

0

3

5

0

0

5

137

1

0

138

145

1

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

146

323

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

7:15:00

8:15:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700008

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4) & Indian Line

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

874

286

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

9

160

169

0

5

112

117

0

14

272

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

6

582

588

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

W

N

E

S

Indian Line

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

339

186

0


163 4 0 167

16 3 0 19

179 7 0


143 10 0 153

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

176

12

0

188

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

419

2

0

421

31

5

0

36

450

7

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

457

645

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:30:00

17:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700008


1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

1055

658

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

3

477

480

0

1

177

178

0

4

654

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

11

386

397

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

W

N

E

S

Indian Line

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

414

202

0


148 5 0 153

45 3 1 49

193 8 1


209 3 0 212

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

522

6

1

529

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

238

6

0

244

32

2

0

34

270

8

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

278

807

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

10:30:00

11:30:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700017


1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

722

364

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

3

244

247

0

2

115

117

0

5

359

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

4

354

358

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

W

N

E

S

Indian Line

Cockshutt Rd (CR 4)

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

328

162

0


119 2 0 121

40 1 0 41

159 3 0


163 3 0 166

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

284

4

0

288

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

235

2

0

237

48

1

0

49

283

3

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

286

574

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

7:00:00

10:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

9:00:00

10:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700009

Hwy 24 & Oakland Rd

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:


** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Hwy 24 runs N/S

North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

465

213

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

15

15

1

34

152

187

0

0

11

11

1

34

178

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

15

236

252


0 4 55 59


0 0 29 29

0 6 49 55

0 0 2 2

0 6 80

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

86

145

Hwy 24

Oakland Rd

W

N

E

S

Oakland Rd

Hwy 24

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

225

101

0


14 2 0 16

37 4 0 41

36 8 0 44

87 14 0


114 10 0 124

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

190

42

1

233

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

3

0

0

3

193

13

1

207

54

4

0

58

250

17

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

1

268

501

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

16:00:00

19:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

16:45:00

17:45:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700009

Hwy 24 & Oakland Rd

1

30-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

755

411

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

1

55

56

0

4

339

343

0

1

11

12

0

6

405

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

1

13

330

344


0 5 154 159


0 2 35 37

0 4 64 68

0 0 9 9

0 6 108

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

114

273

Hwy 24

Oakland Rd

W

N

E

S

Oakland Rd

Hwy 24

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

400

234

0


11 0 0 11

94 3 0 97

126 0 0 126

231 3 0


156 10 0 166

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

474

4

0

478

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

5

1

0

6

284

11

1

296

81

5

0

86

370

17

1

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

388

866

Comments

Draft



From:

To:

9:00:00

12:00:00

One Hour Peak

From:

To:

11:00:00

12:00:00

Municipality:

Site #:

Intersection:

TFR File #:

Count date:

Brant

1713700018

Hwy 24 & Oakland Rd

1

27-May-17

Weather conditions:



North Leg Total:

North Entering:

North Peds:

Peds Cross:

526

271

0

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

0

29

29

0

7

211

218

0

0

24

24

0

7

264

Heavys

Trucks

Cars

Totals

0

9

246

255


0 0 109 109


0 0 37 37

0 2 81 83

0 0 12 12

0 2 130

Peds Cross:

West Peds:

West Entering:

West Leg Total:

0

132

241

Hwy 24

Oakland Rd

W

N

E

S

Oakland Rd

Hwy 24

East Leg Total:

East Entering:

East Peds:

Peds Cross:

329

163

0


12 1 0 13

75 0 0 75

73 2 0 75

160 3 0


160 6 0 166

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

296

9

0

305

Cars

Trucks

Heavys

Totals

5

0

0

5

197

8

0

205

55

4

0

59

257

12

0

Peds Cross:

South Peds:

South Entering:

South Leg Total:

0

269

574

Comments

Draft

Appendix B

Traffic Operations (Synchro Reports)

Ap

pen

dix

B

Draft

Queues 2017 AM � Existing

1: Highway 24 & Oakland Road 06/13/2017

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Synchro 9 Report

036031_2017_Existing_AM.syn Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 62 48 62 3 225 63 12 203 16

v/c Ratio 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.22 0.02

Control Delay 13.2 13.0 13.6 10.6 8.0 9.7 2.9 8.1 9.5 2.6

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.2 13.0 13.6 10.6 8.0 9.7 2.9 8.1 9.5 2.6

Queue Length 50th (m) 2.3 4.3 3.4 3.2 0.2 13.2 0.0 0.6 11.8 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 6.9 10.7 9.2 9.5 1.2 24.1 4.7 2.7 22.0 1.8

Internal Link Dist (m) 293.0 6627.7 135.2 331.4

Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0

Base Capacity (vph) 483 672 483 658 583 925 819 572 925 800

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.22 0.02

Intersection Summary

Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 AM � Existing




Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Volume (vph) 29 55 2 44 41 16 3 207 58 11 187 15

Future Volume (vph) 29 55 2 44 41 16 3 207 58 11 187 15

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1874 1789 1806 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1350 1874 1350 1806 1187 1883 1601 1164 1883 1601

Peak=hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 32 60 2 48 45 17 3 225 63 12 203 16

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 32 0 0 8

Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 61 0 48 51 0 3 225 31 12 203 8

Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm

Protected Phases 4 8 2 6

Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6

Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5

Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49

Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 483 671 483 647 583 925 787 572 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.03 c0.12 0.11

v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00

v/c Ratio 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.24 0.04 0.02 0.22 0.01

Uniform Delay, d1 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.7 7.8 8.8 7.9 7.8 8.7 7.8

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0

Delay (s) 12.9 13.0 13.2 13.0 7.8 9.4 8.0 7.9 9.2 7.8

Level of Service B B B B A A A A A A

Approach Delay (s) 13.0 13.1 9.1 9.1

Approach LOS B B A A


HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.18

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.5% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group

Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 AM � Existing

2: Biggars Lane & Elliott Road 06/13/2017



Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 4 1 19 9 0

Future Volume (Veh/h) 1 4 1 19 9 0

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 1 21 10 0

Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type None None

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume 33 10 10

vC1, stage 1 conf vol


vCu, unblocked vol 33 10 10

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 100 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 980 1071 1610

Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 5 22 10

Volume Left 1 1 0

Volume Right 4 0 0

cSH 1052 1610 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01

Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 0.0

Control Delay (s) 8.4 0.3 0.0

Lane LOS A A

Approach Delay (s) 8.4 0.3 0.0

Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.3



Draft


3: Hagan Road & Biggars Lane/Landfill Access 06/13/2017



Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations

Sign Control Stop Stop Stop

Traffic Volume (vph) 3 20 2 2 15 3

Future Volume (vph) 3 20 2 2 15 3

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1

Volume Total (vph) 25 4 19

Volume Left (vph) 0 2 16

Volume Right (vph) 22 0 3

Hadj (s) =0.49 0.13 0.11

Departure Headway (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1

Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.00 0.02

Capacity (veh/h) 1029 869 867



Approach LOS A A A


Delay 6.8

Level of Service A



Draft


4: Cockshutt Road & Oakland Road & Hagan Road 06/13/2017




Lane Configurations

Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 172 8 100 89 2 7 15 296 1 8 0

Future Volume (Veh/h) 2 172 8 100 89 2 7 15 296 1 8 0

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 187 9 109 97 2 8 16 322 1 9 0

Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)


vC, conflicting volume 99 196 510 508 187 837 516 98



vCu, unblocked vol 99 196 510 508 187 837 516 98

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 92 98 96 62 99 98 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1494 1377 437 430 855 163 426 958

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 189 9 109 99 346 10

Volume Left 2 0 109 0 8 1

Volume Right 0 9 0 2 322 0

cSH 1494 1700 1377 1700 801 366

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.43 0.03

Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 16.7 0.6

Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 7.8 0.0 12.9 15.1

Lane LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (s) 0.1 4.1 12.9 15.1

Approach LOS B C


Average Delay 7.2



Draft


5: Biggars Lane & Wetmores Road 06/13/2017




Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 100 100




Volume Left 9 2 0

Volume Right 3 0 1

cSH 1008 1611 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 3.2



Draft


6: Cockshutt Road & Indian Line 06/13/2017



Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 92 70 88


Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 203 458 39 127 184

Volume Left 21 0 0 127 0

Volume Right 182 0 39 0 0

cSH 536 1700 1700 1067 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.38 0.27 0.02 0.12 0.11

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0

Control Delay (s) 15.7 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0

Lane LOS C A


Approach LOS C


Average Delay 4.3



Draft


7: Mount Pleasant Road & Burtch Road 06/13/2017




Lane Configurations

Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop



Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1

Volume Total (vph) 55 85 121 84

Volume Left (vph) 28 7 7 23

Volume Right (vph) 4 42 4 13

Hadj (s) 0.09 =0.25 0.03 0.00

Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.3

Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.10

Capacity (veh/h) 750 806 796 785

Control Delay (s) 7.9 7.6 8.1 7.8

Approach Delay (s) 7.9 7.6 8.1 7.8

Approach LOS A A A A


Delay 7.9

Level of Service A



Draft


8: Biggars Lane & Burtch Road 06/13/2017




Lane Configurations



Sign Control Free Free Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 2 15

Volume Right 10 0 11

cSH 1700 1560 949




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.9



Draft


9: Cockshutt Road & Burtch Road 06/13/2017




Lane Configurations



Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 94 95 95 100 97 96 97 99

cM capacity (veh/h) 210 251 774 201 250 502 1296 979

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 61 30 631 0 275 3

Volume Left 12 1 33 0 10 0


cSH 400 391 1296 1700 979 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 4.1 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0

Control Delay (s) 15.6 15.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0

Lane LOS C B A A

Approach Delay (s) 15.6 15.0 0.7 0.4

Approach LOS C B


Average Delay 2.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service B


Draft

Queues 2017 PM � Existing



036031_2017_Existing_PM.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.09 0.13 0.29 0.17 0.02 0.35 0.11 0.03 0.40 0.07

Control Delay 13.5 12.4 15.9 12.8 8.0 10.7 2.6 8.2 11.3 2.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.5 12.4 15.9 12.8 8.0 10.7 2.6 8.2 11.3 2.9

Queue Length 50th (m) 2.8 5.3 10.5 7.7 0.4 20.1 0.0 0.7 24.1 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 8.2 13.0 21.9 17.0 2.0 34.9 5.6 2.9 41.0 4.6


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.13 0.29 0.17 0.02 0.35 0.11 0.03 0.40 0.07


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 PM � Existing





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1850 1789 1854 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1284 1850 1323 1854 897 1883 1601 988 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 40 74 10 137 105 12 7 322 93 13 373 61









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 460 662 474 664 441 925 787 485 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.06 0.17 c0.20

v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.10 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02

v/c Ratio 0.09 0.12 0.29 0.17 0.02 0.35 0.06 0.03 0.40 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 12.7 12.9 13.8 13.1 7.8 9.4 8.0 7.9 9.7 7.9



Delay (s) 13.1 13.3 15.3 13.7 7.9 10.4 8.1 8.0 11.0 8.0

Level of Service B B B B A B A A B A

Approach Delay (s) 13.2 14.6 9.8 10.5

Approach LOS B B A B








Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 PM � Existing





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 100 100




Volume Left 3 2 0

Volume Right 5 0 7

cSH 1013 1583 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.57 0.13 0.23






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 6.9

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 75 91 88 83 87 90 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1354 1436 149 169 915 96 166 826


Volume Total 136 12 353 216 186 32

Volume Left 2 0 353 0 14 13


cSH 1354 1700 1436 1700 485 134


Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 13.5 6.7

Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 17.0 40.2

Lane LOS A A C E

Approach Delay (s) 0.1 5.2 17.0 40.2

Approach LOS C E


Average Delay 7.9



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 100 100




Volume Left 8 1 0

Volume Right 1 0 4

cSH 965 1583 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 219 265 37 193 522



cSH 430 1700 1700 1259 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 21.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0

Control Delay (s) 21.8 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0

Lane LOS C A


Approach LOS C


Average Delay 5.2



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.02 =0.25 0.03 =0.01



Capacity (veh/h) 719 765 756 791

Control Delay (s) 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.7




Delay 8.3

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 14 15


cSH 1700 1535 896




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.9



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 89 92 92 94 87 96 94 96

cM capacity (veh/h) 111 154 457 109 151 668 908 1178


Volume Total 63 55 431 1 722 16

Volume Left 12 7 52 0 52 0


cSH 228 231 908 1700 1178 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 8.2 6.9 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0

Control Delay (s) 26.6 25.4 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0

Lane LOS D D A A

Approach Delay (s) 26.6 25.4 1.7 1.1

Approach LOS D D


Average Delay 3.6

Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.4% ICU Level of Service C


Draft

Queues 2017 Sat Existing



036031_2017_Existing_Sat.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.01 0.24 0.08 0.05 0.26 0.04

Control Delay 13.5 12.4 14.5 12.2 8.0 9.7 2.9 8.3 9.8 3.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.5 12.4 14.5 12.2 8.0 9.7 2.9 8.3 9.8 3.5

Queue Length 50th (m) 2.8 6.5 6.0 5.9 0.3 13.1 0.0 1.4 14.1 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 8.2 15.1 14.1 14.1 1.6 24.0 4.7 4.6 25.5 3.3


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.01 0.24 0.08 0.05 0.26 0.04


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Sat Existing





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1848 1789 1842 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.69 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1309 1848 1300 1842 1146 1883 1601 1166 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 40 90 13 82 82 14 5 223 64 26 237 32









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 469 662 465 660 563 925 787 573 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.05 0.12 c0.13

v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.13 0.01 0.24 0.04 0.05 0.26 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 12.7 13.0 13.2 13.0 7.8 8.8 7.9 7.9 8.9 7.8



Delay (s) 13.1 13.5 14.0 13.4 7.8 9.4 8.0 8.1 9.5 7.9

Level of Service B B B B A A A A A A

Approach Delay (s) 13.4 13.7 9.1 9.2

Approach LOS B B A A








Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Sat Existing





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 100 100




Volume Left 3 2 0

Volume Right 3 0 2

cSH 1011 1593 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.30 0.07 0.11






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.0

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 88 99 99 83 99 98 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1442 1411 343 345 895 229 338 908


Volume Total 155 16 170 141 158 13



cSH 1442 1700 1411 1700 828 350


Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 5.3 0.9

Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 10.4 15.7

Lane LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 4.3 10.4 15.7

Approach LOS B C


Average Delay 4.9



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 100 100




Volume Left 5 3 0

Volume Right 3 0 3

cSH 1005 1600 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 177 258 53 127 268



cSH 577 1700 1700 1249 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 9.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) 14.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0

Lane LOS B A


Approach LOS B


Average Delay 4.0



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.02 =0.20 0.01 =0.06



Capacity (veh/h) 731 761 781 805

Control Delay (s) 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.3




Delay 8.1

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 7 16


cSH 1700 1549 929




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.0



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 92 95 96 97 97 95 98 98

cM capacity (veh/h) 246 291 682 250 289 682 1179 1184


Volume Total 59 52 383 11 392 16

Volume Left 20 7 20 0 29 0

Volume Right 24 35 0 11 0 16

cSH 351 456 1179 1700 1184 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 4.5 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) 17.3 13.9 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0

Lane LOS C B A A

Approach Delay (s) 17.3 13.9 0.6 0.8

Approach LOS C B


Average Delay 2.5



Draft

Queues 2050 AM � Background



036031_2050_Background_AM.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.44 0.13 0.05 0.40 0.04

Control Delay 13.9 13.7 14.6 10.7 8.0 11.8 2.5 8.5 11.2 3.6

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.9 13.7 14.6 10.7 8.0 11.8 2.5 8.5 11.2 3.6

Queue Length 50th (m) 4.1 7.9 6.3 5.8 0.3 26.7 0.0 1.2 23.5 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 10.6 17.0 14.8 14.6 1.6 45.0 6.1 4.2 40.2 3.2


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.44 0.13 0.05 0.40 0.04


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 AM � Background





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1873 1789 1803 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1290 1873 1290 1803 909 1883 1601 841 1883 1601

Peak<hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 57 108 4 86 80 32 5 405 113 22 366 29









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 462 671 462 646 446 925 787 413 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.05 c0.22 0.19

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.44 0.07 0.05 0.40 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.0 7.8 9.9 8.0 8.0 9.6 7.8



Delay (s) 13.5 13.6 14.1 13.5 7.8 11.4 8.2 8.2 10.9 7.9


Approach Delay (s) 13.6 13.8 10.7 10.5

Approach LOS B B B B








Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 AM � Background





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 99 100




Volume Left 2 2 0

Volume Right 8 0 0

cSH 1037 1600 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.5



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.50 0.13 0.12






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 6.9

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 84 93 87 18 86 93 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1398 1207 209 228 705 14 224 867


Volume Total 341 15 196 178 622 17

Volume Left 4 0 196 0 14 2


cSH 1398 1700 1207 1700 613 81


Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.0 120.6 5.5

Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 8.6 0.0 66.3 60.7

Lane LOS A A F F

Approach Delay (s) 0.1 4.5 66.3 60.7

Approach LOS F F


Average Delay 32.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D


Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 98 100 100




Volume Left 15 4 0

Volume Right 5 0 2

cSH 984 1602 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 3.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 364 825 71 229 330



cSH 271 1700 1700 757 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 143.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0

Control Delay (s) 212.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0

Lane LOS F B


Approach LOS F


Average Delay 44.1

Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.1% ICU Level of Service E


Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.09 <0.25 0.02 <0.01



Capacity (veh/h) 641 703 716 697

Control Delay (s) 8.9 8.9 9.7 9.0




Delay 9.2

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 4 27


cSH 1700 1514 875




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.0



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 54 74 89 95 86 85 95 97

cM capacity (veh/h) 48 84 587 42 83 266 1080 647


Volume Total 110 53 1136 0 495 5

Volume Left 22 2 59 0 17 0


cSH 132 157 1080 1700 647 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 39.6 10.5 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) 103.3 39.2 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0

Lane LOS F E A A

Approach Delay (s) 103.3 39.2 1.6 0.7

Approach LOS F E


Average Delay 8.7

Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G


Draft

Queues 2050 PM � Background



036031_2050_Background_PM.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.19 0.09 0.73 0.13

Control Delay 14.7 13.5 21.2 14.8 9.0 15.0 2.3 9.2 17.8 2.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.7 13.5 21.2 14.8 9.0 15.0 2.3 9.2 17.8 2.5

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.4 10.3 21.2 15.5 0.6 43.3 0.0 1.3 54.1 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.2 21.2 40.8 29.4 3.0 71.6 7.4 4.6 89.8 6.1


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.19 0.09 0.73 0.13


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 PM � Background





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1852 1789 1854 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1143 1852 1245 1854 414 1883 1601 557 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 134 17 247 190 22 12 579 168 24 672 110









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 409 663 446 664 203 925 787 273 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.11 0.31 c0.36

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.20 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.18 0.22 0.55 0.31 0.06 0.63 0.10 0.09 0.73 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 13.4 15.4 13.9 8.0 11.2 8.2 8.1 12.1 8.0



Delay (s) 14.1 14.1 20.3 15.1 8.5 14.4 8.4 8.7 17.0 8.2

Level of Service B B C B A B A A B A

Approach Delay (s) 14.1 17.9 13.0 15.6









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 PM � Background





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 5 4 0


cSH 981 1553 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.5



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.57 0.13 0.23






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.0

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 51 0 0 66 0 5 99

cM capacity (veh/h) 1169 1301 5 35 798 0 34 662


Volume Total 245 22 637 390 334 60

Volume Left 4 0 637 0 25 24


cSH 1169 1700 1301 1700 53 0

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.23 6.28 Err

Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 21.2 0.0 Err Err

Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 10.4 0.0 Err Err

Lane LOS A B F F

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 6.4 Err Err

Approach LOS F F


Average Delay Err



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 98 100 100




Volume Left 14 2 0

Volume Right 2 0 8

cSH 917 1550 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 396 478 66 349 940



cSH 127 1700 1700 1025 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) Err 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) Err 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0

Lane LOS F B

Approach Delay (s) Err 0.0 2.8

Approach LOS F


Average Delay 1778.0



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.02 <0.25 0.03 <0.01



Capacity (veh/h) 594 639 641 707

Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.7 9.5 12.2


Approach LOS A A A B


Delay 10.8

Level of Service B



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 25 27


cSH 1700 1465 786




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 0 21 70 0 0 89 83 90

cM capacity (veh/h) 0 31 223 5 29 449 564 908


Volume Total 114 98 777 2 1300 29

Volume Left 22 12 93 0 93 0


cSH 0 27 564 1700 908 1700

Volume to Capacity Err 3.63 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.02

Queue Length 95th (m) Err Err 4.5 0.0 2.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) Err Err 4.6 0.0 3.8 0.0

Lane LOS F F A A

Approach Delay (s) Err Err 4.6 3.7

Approach LOS F F


Average Delay Err

Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.6% ICU Level of Service H


Draft

Queues 2050 Sat � Background



036031_2050_Background_Sat.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.07

Control Delay 14.5 14.1 16.9 13.6 8.2 11.7 2.5 9.1 12.1 3.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.5 14.1 16.9 13.6 8.2 11.7 2.5 9.1 12.1 3.0

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.3 13.1 11.5 11.7 0.5 26.4 0.0 2.6 28.6 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.0 25.7 24.0 23.5 2.5 44.5 6.2 7.3 48.1 4.4


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.07


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 Sat � Background





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1847 1789 1842 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.65 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1221 1847 1205 1842 804 1883 1601 848 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 163 24 147 147 25 10 401 115 47 427 57









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 661 431 660 395 925 787 416 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.09 0.21 c0.23

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.12 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.02

v/c Ratio 0.17 0.27 0.34 0.25 0.03 0.43 0.07 0.11 0.46 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 13.1 13.7 14.1 13.5 7.8 9.9 8.0 8.2 10.0 7.9



Delay (s) 14.0 14.7 16.2 14.4 8.0 11.3 8.2 8.8 11.7 8.0


Approach Delay (s) 14.5 15.3 10.6 11.0









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 Sat � Background





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 100 100




Volume Left 5 4 0

Volume Right 5 0 4

cSH 978 1571 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.30 0.07 0.12






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.1

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 99 76 96 93 65 91 92 99

cM capacity (veh/h) 1310 1260 130 149 767 56 143 786


Volume Total 280 29 305 255 286 22



cSH 1310 1700 1260 1700 623 123


Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 7.2 0.0 18.3 4.7

Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 15.6 40.6

Lane LOS A A C E

Approach Delay (s) 0.3 4.8 15.6 40.6

Approach LOS C E


Average Delay 6.9



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 100 100




Volume Left 10 5 0

Volume Right 5 0 5

cSH 970 1583 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 317 464 96 229 484



cSH 296 1700 1700 1011 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 93.4 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) 111.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0

Lane LOS F A


Approach LOS F


Average Delay 23.5



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.02 <0.20 0.02 <0.06



Capacity (veh/h) 623 637 684 723

Control Delay (s) 9.5 8.9 9.5 10.5




Delay 9.8

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 12 29


cSH 1700 1490 840




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 46 75 91 81 84 87 96 94

cM capacity (veh/h) 65 110 467 64 109 467 910 917


Volume Total 105 92 689 20 707 29

Volume Left 35 12 35 0 53 0

Volume Right 43 63 0 20 0 29

cSH 120 193 910 1700 917 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 41.2 17.6 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.0

Control Delay (s) 119.6 39.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0

Lane LOS F E A A

Approach Delay (s) 119.6 39.7 1.0 1.4

Approach LOS F E


Average Delay 10.9



Draft

Queues 2050 AM � Total



036031_2050_Total_AM.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.44 0.13 0.06 0.40 0.04

Control Delay 13.9 13.7 14.6 10.6 8.0 11.8 2.5 8.5 11.2 3.6

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.9 13.7 14.6 10.6 8.0 11.8 2.5 8.5 11.2 3.6

Queue Length 50th (m) 4.1 7.9 6.3 5.8 0.3 26.7 0.0 1.2 23.5 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 10.6 17.0 14.8 14.6 1.6 45.0 6.1 4.3 40.2 3.2


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.44 0.13 0.06 0.40 0.04


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 AM � Total





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1873 1789 1801 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1289 1873 1290 1801 909 1883 1601 841 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 57 108 4 86 80 33 5 405 113 23 366 29









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 671 462 645 446 925 787 413 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.05 c0.22 0.19

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.44 0.07 0.06 0.40 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.0 7.8 9.9 8.0 8.0 9.6 7.8



Delay (s) 13.5 13.6 14.1 13.5 7.8 11.4 8.2 8.2 10.9 7.9


Approach Delay (s) 13.6 13.8 10.7 10.5









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 AM � Total





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 99 100




Volume Left 2 2 0

Volume Right 8 0 0

cSH 1030 1593 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.44 0.13 0.01






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.0

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 99 84 93 86 18 78 93 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1394 1207 205 225 705 14 221 866


Volume Total 344 15 196 181 625 20

Volume Left 7 0 196 0 14 3


cSH 1394 1700 1207 1700 606 68


Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 4.4 0.0 125.9 8.0

Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 71.1 78.4

Lane LOS A A F F

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 4.5 71.1 78.4

Approach LOS F F


Average Delay 34.6



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 15 5 0

Volume Right 7 0 2

cSH 984 1599 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 3.2



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 365 826 72 229 332



cSH 269 1700 1700 756 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 145.5 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0

Control Delay (s) 219.6 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0

Lane LOS F B


Approach LOS F


Average Delay 45.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.09 <0.25 0.02 0.00



Capacity (veh/h) 640 702 715 696

Control Delay (s) 9.0 8.9 9.7 9.1




Delay 9.2

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 4 29


cSH 1700 1510 870




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 54 74 89 95 86 85 95 97

cM capacity (veh/h) 48 84 587 42 83 266 1079 647


Volume Total 110 53 1137 0 496 5

Volume Left 22 2 59 0 17 0


cSH 131 156 1079 1700 647 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 39.8 10.5 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) 104.1 39.4 1.7 0.0 0.7 0.0

Lane LOS F E A A

Approach Delay (s) 104.1 39.4 1.7 0.7

Approach LOS F E


Average Delay 8.8

Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.9% ICU Level of Service G


Draft

Queues 2050 AM � Total with Improvements



036031_2050_Total_AM_IMPROVEMENTS.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.44 0.13 0.06 0.40 0.04

Control Delay 13.9 13.7 14.6 10.6 8.0 11.8 2.5 8.5 11.2 3.6

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 13.9 13.7 14.6 10.6 8.0 11.8 2.5 8.5 11.2 3.6

Queue Length 50th (m) 4.1 7.9 6.3 5.8 0.3 26.7 0.0 1.2 23.5 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 10.6 17.0 14.8 14.6 1.6 45.0 6.1 4.3 40.2 3.2


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.44 0.13 0.06 0.40 0.04


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 AM � Total with Improvements





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1873 1789 1801 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1289 1873 1290 1801 909 1883 1601 841 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 57 108 4 86 80 33 5 405 113 23 366 29









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 671 462 645 446 925 787 413 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.05 c0.22 0.19

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.44 0.07 0.06 0.40 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.0 7.8 9.9 8.0 8.0 9.6 7.8



Delay (s) 13.5 13.6 14.1 13.5 7.8 11.4 8.2 8.2 10.9 7.9


Approach Delay (s) 13.6 13.8 10.7 10.5









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 AM � Total with Improvements





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 99 100




Volume Left 2 2 0

Volume Right 8 0 0

cSH 1030 1593 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.44 0.13 0.01






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.0

Level of Service A



Draft





Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 344 15 196 181 46 579 20

v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.33 0.18 0.12 0.81 0.05

Control Delay 17.2 0.1 8.2 7.9 15.6 14.4 14.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 17.2 0.1 8.2 7.9 15.6 14.4 14.2

Queue Length 50th (m) 24.3 0.0 7.1 7.1 3.4 9.1 1.4

Queue Length 95th (m) 55.1 0.0 21.1 20.6 9.2 36.3 5.1


Turn Bay Length (m) 20.0 50.0

Base Capacity (vph) 739 709 587 1024 670 906 701

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.33 0.18 0.07 0.64 0.03


Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.99

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99

Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1601 1789 1873 1855 1601 1857

Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96

Satd. Flow (perm) 1871 1601 806 1873 1719 1601 1796


Adj. Flow (vph) 7 337 15 196 174 7 14 32 579 3 16 1



Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA

Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6


Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 20.5 29.2 29.2 11.4 11.4 11.4

Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 29.2 29.2 11.4 11.4 11.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.56 0.56 0.22 0.22 0.22

Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 729 623 535 1039 372 346 389

v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.10

v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.00 0.17 0.03 c0.14 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.47 0.01 0.37 0.17 0.12 0.63 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 9.8 6.2 5.8 16.6 18.7 16.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 3.5 0.1

Delay (s) 14.2 9.9 6.6 6.1 16.7 22.2 16.4

Level of Service B A A A B C B

Approach Delay (s) 14.0 6.4 21.8 16.4

Approach LOS B A C B








Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 15 5 0

Volume Right 7 0 2

cSH 984 1599 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 3.2



Draft





Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 327 826 72 229 332

v/c Ratio 0.16 0.73 0.81 0.08 0.67 0.25

Control Delay 27.9 17.2 23.2 6.8 17.8 5.3

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 27.9 17.2 23.2 6.8 17.8 5.3

Queue Length 50th (m) 4.6 7.4 80.0 2.5 7.0 12.3

Queue Length 95th (m) 11.9 30.0 #183.4 9.7 #28.4 32.6

Internal Link Dist (m) 364.6 32.8 2062.4


Base Capacity (vph) 449 601 1018 878 344 1312

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.54 0.81 0.08 0.67 0.25


# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1601 1883 1601 1789 1883

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1789 1601 1883 1601 264 1883

Peak=hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 38 327 826 72 229 332

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 231 0 13 0 0


Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA


Permitted Phases 8 2 6

Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 9.8 39.0 39.0 50.2 50.2

Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 9.8 39.0 39.0 50.2 50.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.54 0.54 0.70 0.70

Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 217 1019 867 336 1312

v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.44 c0.07 0.18

v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.04 0.41

v/c Ratio 0.16 0.44 0.81 0.07 0.68 0.25

Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 28.6 13.5 7.9 10.9 4.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.4 7.0 0.2 5.6 0.5

Delay (s) 27.8 30.0 20.5 8.0 16.5 4.5

Level of Service C C C A B A


Approach LOS C B A








Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.09 =0.25 0.02 0.00



Capacity (veh/h) 640 702 715 696

Control Delay (s) 9.0 8.9 9.7 9.1




Delay 9.2

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 4 29


cSH 1700 1510 870




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft





Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR


v/c Ratio 0.50 0.26 0.08 0.74 0.05 0.35 0.00

Control Delay 24.0 18.3 2.8 13.2 3.1 7.5 0.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 24.0 18.3 2.8 13.2 3.1 7.5 0.0

Queue Length 50th (m) 6.3 2.0 1.5 72.5 0.4 31.5 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 20.6 11.6 4.7 #245.1 2.0 57.4 0.0


Turn Bay Length (m) 60.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.13 0.08 0.74 0.05 0.35 0.00




Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.92 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1714 1693 1789 1883 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.92 0.98 0.44 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1586 1664 834 1883 272 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 22 22 66 2 12 39 59 1078 0 17 479 5



Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm

Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6





Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 130 137 662 1339 207 1289 1096

v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.57 0.00 0.25

v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00

v/c Ratio 0.38 0.13 0.09 0.81 0.08 0.37 0.00

Uniform Delay, d1 35.9 35.1 2.9 8.0 8.5 5.5 4.1



Delay (s) 37.7 35.5 2.9 13.3 8.7 6.3 4.1

Level of Service D D A B A A A

Approach Delay (s) 37.7 35.5 12.7 6.4

Approach LOS D D B A








Draft

Queues 2050 PM � Total



036031_2050_Total_PM.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.19 0.09 0.73 0.13

Control Delay 14.7 13.5 21.2 14.8 9.0 15.0 2.3 9.2 17.8 2.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.7 13.5 21.2 14.8 9.0 15.0 2.3 9.2 17.8 2.5

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.4 10.3 21.2 15.5 0.6 43.3 0.0 1.3 54.1 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.2 21.2 40.8 29.4 3.0 71.6 7.4 4.6 89.8 6.1


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.19 0.09 0.73 0.13


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 PM � Total





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1852 1789 1854 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1143 1852 1245 1854 414 1883 1601 557 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 134 17 247 190 22 12 579 168 24 672 110









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 409 663 446 664 203 925 787 273 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.11 0.31 c0.36

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.20 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.18 0.22 0.55 0.31 0.06 0.63 0.10 0.09 0.73 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 13.4 15.4 13.9 8.0 11.2 8.2 8.1 12.1 8.0



Delay (s) 14.1 14.1 20.3 15.1 8.5 14.4 8.4 8.7 17.0 8.2


Approach Delay (s) 14.1 17.9 13.0 15.6









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 PM � Total





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 5 4 0


cSH 979 1551 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.5



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.55 0.15 0.21






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.0

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 100 51 0 0 66 0 5 99

cM capacity (veh/h) 1168 1301 5 34 798 0 34 661


Volume Total 245 22 637 391 334 62

Volume Left 4 0 637 0 25 25


cSH 1168 1700 1301 1700 53 0

Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.23 6.33 Err

Queue Length 95th (m) 0.1 0.0 21.2 0.0 Err Err

Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 10.4 0.0 Err Err

Lane LOS A B F F

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 6.4 Err Err

Approach LOS F F


Average Delay Err



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 98 100 100




Volume Left 14 2 0

Volume Right 2 0 8

cSH 916 1550 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 396 478 66 349 940



cSH 127 1700 1700 1025 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) Err 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) Err 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0

Lane LOS F B

Approach Delay (s) Err 0.0 2.8

Approach LOS F


Average Delay 1778.0



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.02 <0.25 0.03 <0.01



Capacity (veh/h) 594 639 641 707

Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.7 9.5 12.2




Delay 10.8

Level of Service B



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 25 28


cSH 1700 1465 783




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 0 21 70 0 0 89 83 90

cM capacity (veh/h) 0 31 223 5 29 449 564 908


Volume Total 114 98 777 2 1300 29

Volume Left 22 12 93 0 93 0


cSH 0 27 564 1700 908 1700

Volume to Capacity Err 3.63 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.02

Queue Length 95th (m) Err Err 4.5 0.0 2.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) Err Err 4.6 0.0 3.8 0.0

Lane LOS F F A A

Approach Delay (s) Err Err 4.6 3.7

Approach LOS F F


Average Delay Err

Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.6% ICU Level of Service H


Draft

Queues 2050 PM � Total with Improvements



036031_2050_Total_PM_IMPROVEMENTS.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.19 0.09 0.73 0.13

Control Delay 14.7 13.5 21.2 14.8 9.0 15.0 2.3 9.2 17.8 2.5

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.7 13.5 21.2 14.8 9.0 15.0 2.3 9.2 17.8 2.5

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.4 10.3 21.2 15.5 0.6 43.3 0.0 1.3 54.1 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.2 21.2 40.8 29.4 3.0 71.6 7.4 4.6 89.8 6.1


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.32 0.06 0.63 0.19 0.09 0.73 0.13


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 PM � Total with Improvements





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1852 1789 1854 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1143 1852 1245 1854 414 1883 1601 557 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 134 17 247 190 22 12 579 168 24 672 110









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 409 663 446 664 203 925 787 273 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.11 0.31 c0.36

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.20 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.18 0.22 0.55 0.31 0.06 0.63 0.10 0.09 0.73 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 13.4 15.4 13.9 8.0 11.2 8.2 8.1 12.1 8.0



Delay (s) 14.1 14.1 20.3 15.1 8.5 14.4 8.4 8.7 17.0 8.2


Approach Delay (s) 14.1 17.9 13.0 15.6









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 PM � Total with Improvements





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 5 4 0


cSH 979 1551 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.5



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.55 0.15 0.21






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.0

Level of Service A



Draft







v/c Ratio 0.39 0.04 0.72 0.31 0.29 0.60 0.29

Control Delay 19.3 0.1 10.6 5.4 26.8 9.9 25.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 19.3 0.1 10.6 5.4 26.8 9.9 25.2

Queue Length 50th (m) 21.0 0.0 24.3 14.1 6.3 0.0 5.8

Queue Length 95th (m) 42.5 0.0 #57.5 31.9 15.3 16.8 14.7







Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.04 0.70 0.31 0.13 0.41 0.13




Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98

Satd. Flow (prot) 1882 1601 1789 1877 1846 1601 1826

Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.84

Satd. Flow (perm) 1869 1601 938 1877 1584 1601 1566


Adj. Flow (vph) 4 241 22 637 382 9 25 37 272 25 32 5









Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 624 534 850 1250 213 215 210


v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.00 c0.30 c0.04 0.02 0.04

v/c Ratio 0.39 0.01 0.75 0.31 0.29 0.17 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 15.4 13.4 5.6 4.2 23.5 23.1 23.4



Delay (s) 17.2 13.5 9.2 4.9 24.2 23.5 24.1

Level of Service B B A A C C C

Approach Delay (s) 16.9 7.6 23.6 24.1

Approach LOS B A C C








Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 98 100 100




Volume Left 14 2 0

Volume Right 2 0 8

cSH 916 1550 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.4



Draft







v/c Ratio 0.35 0.60 0.65 0.10 0.60 0.79

Control Delay 24.5 8.8 20.4 7.2 9.1 15.4

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 24.5 8.8 20.4 7.2 9.1 15.4

Queue Length 50th (m) 8.8 0.0 38.3 1.5 11.3 56.9

Queue Length 95th (m) 19.4 16.4 #77.0 8.3 26.3 #151.8







Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.65 0.10 0.59 0.79




Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1601 1883 1601 1789 1883

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1789 1601 1883 1601 552 1883


Adj. Flow (vph) 96 300 478 66 349 940









Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 244 731 621 559 1188

v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.25 0.11 c0.50

v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 0.29

v/c Ratio 0.35 0.19 0.65 0.07 0.62 0.79

Uniform Delay, d1 21.1 20.5 13.9 10.7 6.2 7.6



Delay (s) 21.9 20.9 18.5 10.9 8.4 13.0

Level of Service C C B B A B


Approach LOS C B B








Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.02 =0.25 0.03 =0.01



Capacity (veh/h) 594 639 641 707

Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.7 9.5 12.2




Delay 10.8

Level of Service B



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 25 28


cSH 1700 1465 783




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.1



Draft





Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 98 93 684 2 93 1207 29

v/c Ratio 0.59 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.17 0.90 0.02

Control Delay 35.8 37.3 19.4 9.1 0.0 3.1 24.0 0.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 35.8 37.3 19.4 9.1 0.0 3.1 24.0 0.0

Queue Length 50th (m) 10.6 10.5 2.7 55.8 0.0 2.7 174.2 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 27.4 26.4 16.8 96.3 0.0 7.2 #329.3 0.3



Base Capacity (vph) 320 314 182 1347 1165 557 1348 1166

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.31 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.17 0.90 0.02




Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.92 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1715 1740 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.89 0.90 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1544 1584 119 1883 1601 633 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 22 24 68 12 35 51 93 684 2 93 1207 29






Actuated Green, G (s) 9.3 9.3 77.3 72.9 72.9 77.5 73.0 73.0

Effective Green, g (s) 9.3 9.3 77.3 72.9 72.9 77.5 73.0 73.0

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.71

Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 139 143 161 1336 1136 528 1338 1138

v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.36 0.01 c0.64

v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.13 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.44 0.42 0.58 0.51 0.00 0.18 0.90 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 44.2 44.1 21.3 6.8 4.3 4.1 12.0 4.4

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 2.0 4.9 1.4 0.0 0.2 10.1 0.0

Delay (s) 46.5 46.1 26.2 8.2 4.3 4.3 22.1 4.4

Level of Service D D C A A A C A

Approach Delay (s) 46.5 46.1 10.3 20.4

Approach LOS D D B C








Draft

Queues 2050 Sat � Total



036031_2050_Total_Sat.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.07

Control Delay 14.5 14.1 16.9 13.6 8.2 11.7 2.5 9.1 12.1 3.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.5 14.1 16.9 13.6 8.2 11.7 2.5 9.1 12.1 3.0

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.3 13.2 11.6 11.8 0.5 26.4 0.0 2.6 28.6 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.0 25.9 24.3 23.7 2.5 44.5 6.2 7.3 48.1 4.4


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.07


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 Sat � Total





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1847 1789 1843 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.65 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1220 1847 1204 1843 804 1883 1601 848 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 164 24 148 148 25 10 401 116 47 427 57









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 661 431 660 395 925 787 416 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.09 0.21 c0.23

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.12 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.02

v/c Ratio 0.17 0.27 0.34 0.25 0.03 0.43 0.07 0.11 0.46 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 13.1 13.7 14.1 13.5 7.8 9.9 8.0 8.2 10.0 7.9



Delay (s) 14.0 14.7 16.3 14.4 8.0 11.3 8.2 8.8 11.7 8.0


Approach Delay (s) 14.5 15.3 10.6 11.0









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 Sat � Total





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 5 5 0

Volume Right 7 0 4

cSH 958 1553 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.2



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) <0.22 0.07 0.03






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.3

Level of Service A



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 99 76 96 93 65 84 92 99

cM capacity (veh/h) 1307 1260 129 148 767 56 142 784


Volume Total 281 29 305 258 286 29



cSH 1307 1700 1260 1700 622 113


Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 0.0 7.2 0.0 18.4 7.2

Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 15.6 47.3

Lane LOS A A C E

Approach Delay (s) 0.3 4.7 15.6 47.3

Approach LOS C E


Average Delay 7.2



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 10 7 0

Volume Right 7 0 5

cSH 945 1566 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.8



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2




Volume Total 317 467 96 229 486



cSH 294 1700 1700 1008 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 94.4 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0

Control Delay (s) 113.6 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0

Lane LOS F A


Approach LOS F


Average Delay 24.0



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.02 <0.21 0.02 <0.06



Capacity (veh/h) 615 632 670 710

Control Delay (s) 9.6 9.1 9.7 10.8




Delay 10.0

Level of Service B



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 12 47


cSH 1700 1474 815




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.6



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 46 75 91 81 84 86 96 94

cM capacity (veh/h) 64 109 465 64 108 465 908 915


Volume Total 105 92 692 20 710 29

Volume Left 35 12 35 0 53 0

Volume Right 43 63 0 20 0 29

cSH 119 191 908 1700 915 1700


Queue Length 95th (m) 41.7 17.8 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.0

Control Delay (s) 122.5 40.3 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0

Lane LOS F E A A

Approach Delay (s) 122.5 40.3 1.0 1.4

Approach LOS F E


Average Delay 11.1



Draft

Queues 2050 Sat � Total with Improvements



036031_2050_Total_Sat_IMPROVEMENTS.syn Page 1



v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.07

Control Delay 14.5 14.1 16.9 13.6 8.2 11.7 2.5 9.1 12.1 3.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.5 14.1 16.9 13.6 8.2 11.7 2.5 9.1 12.1 3.0

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.3 13.2 11.6 11.8 0.5 26.4 0.0 2.6 28.6 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 13.0 25.9 24.3 23.7 2.5 44.5 6.2 7.3 48.1 4.4


Turn Bay Length (m) 40.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 85.0





Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.34 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.14 0.11 0.46 0.07


Draft

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 Sat � Total with Improvements





Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1847 1789 1843 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.65 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1220 1847 1204 1843 804 1883 1601 848 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 164 24 148 148 25 10 401 116 47 427 57









Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 661 431 660 395 925 787 416 925 787

v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.09 0.21 c0.23

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.12 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.02

v/c Ratio 0.17 0.27 0.34 0.25 0.03 0.43 0.07 0.11 0.46 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 13.1 13.7 14.1 13.5 7.8 9.9 8.0 8.2 10.0 7.9



Delay (s) 14.0 14.7 16.3 14.4 8.0 11.3 8.2 8.8 11.7 8.0


Approach Delay (s) 14.5 15.3 10.6 11.0









Draft

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2050 Sat � Total with Improvements





Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 5 5 0

Volume Right 7 0 4

cSH 958 1553 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.2



Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) =0.22 0.07 0.03






Approach LOS A A A


Delay 7.3

Level of Service A



Draft







v/c Ratio 0.41 0.04 0.42 0.23 0.06 0.58 0.12

Control Delay 14.4 0.1 6.0 5.4 18.0 8.7 15.9

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 14.4 0.1 6.0 5.4 18.0 8.7 15.9

Queue Length 50th (m) 16.8 0.0 7.8 7.5 1.2 0.0 1.6

Queue Length 95th (m) 38.0 0.0 22.2 20.5 4.8 14.8 6.8







Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.04 0.42 0.23 0.02 0.36 0.05


Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98

Satd. Flow (prot) 1880 1601 1789 1876 1853 1601 1786

Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89

Satd. Flow (perm) 1858 1601 908 1876 1657 1601 1614


Adj. Flow (vph) 9 272 29 305 251 7 5 10 271 9 12 8









Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 693 597 691 1145 241 233 235


v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01 c0.20 0.01 c0.02 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.41 0.02 0.44 0.22 0.06 0.17 0.09

Uniform Delay, d1 11.4 9.7 4.7 4.3 18.1 18.4 18.2



Delay (s) 13.2 9.8 5.2 4.8 18.2 18.8 18.4

Level of Service B A A A B B B

Approach Delay (s) 12.9 5.0 18.8 18.4

Approach LOS B A B B








Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2





Volume Left 10 7 0

Volume Right 7 0 5

cSH 945 1566 1700




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 1.8



Draft







v/c Ratio 0.29 0.53 0.63 0.14 0.43 0.43

Control Delay 21.1 8.1 17.5 5.7 6.7 7.2

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 21.1 8.1 17.5 5.7 6.7 7.2

Queue Length 50th (m) 6.4 0.0 31.4 1.6 6.4 18.6

Queue Length 95th (m) 15.3 13.9 62.6 9.0 16.0 41.0







Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.63 0.14 0.43 0.43


Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1601 1883 1601 1789 1883

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1789 1601 1883 1601 593 1883


Adj. Flow (vph) 80 237 467 96 229 486









Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 250 741 630 510 1134

v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.25 0.06 c0.26

v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.21

v/c Ratio 0.29 0.15 0.63 0.09 0.45 0.43

Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 18.1 12.2 9.5 5.5 5.3



Delay (s) 19.1 18.4 16.2 9.8 6.1 6.5

Level of Service B B B A A A


Approach LOS B B A








Draft






Lane Configurations




Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92






Hadj (s) 0.02 =0.21 0.02 =0.06



Capacity (veh/h) 615 632 670 710

Control Delay (s) 9.6 9.1 9.7 10.8




Delay 10.0

Level of Service B



Draft






Lane Configurations




Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians

Lane Width (m)

Walking Speed (m/s)

Percent Blockage



Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (m)






tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3





Volume Left 0 12 47


cSH 1700 1474 815




Lane LOS A A


Approach LOS A


Average Delay 2.6



Draft





Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 92 35 657 20 53 657 29

v/c Ratio 0.40 0.32 0.07 0.59 0.02 0.11 0.56 0.03

Control Delay 18.7 12.8 3.9 14.6 0.1 4.2 13.3 0.0

Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Delay 18.7 12.8 3.9 14.6 0.1 4.2 13.3 0.0

Queue Length 50th (m) 5.6 2.6 0.9 49.0 0.0 1.3 28.8 0.0

Queue Length 95th (m) 16.6 12.4 3.4 #109.5 0.0 4.6 #111.4 0.0



Base Capacity (vph) 554 600 537 1119 999 498 1178 1045

Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.15 0.07 0.59 0.02 0.11 0.56 0.03




Draft






Lane Configurations



Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 0.94 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1698 1789 1883 1601 1789 1883 1601

Flt Permitted 0.85 0.94 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1518 1612 595 1883 1601 543 1883 1601


Adj. Flow (vph) 35 27 43 12 17 63 35 657 20 53 657 29






Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 6.5 32.7 30.5 30.5 34.5 31.4 31.4

Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 6.5 32.7 30.5 30.5 34.5 31.4 31.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.58 0.54 0.54 0.61 0.56 0.56

Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 175 186 393 1023 870 402 1053 896

v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.35 c0.01 0.35

v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.38 0.20 0.09 0.64 0.01 0.13 0.62 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 22.9 22.4 5.5 9.0 5.9 5.2 8.4 5.5

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.5 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0

Delay (s) 24.3 22.9 5.6 12.1 5.9 5.3 11.1 5.5

Level of Service C C A B A A B A

Approach Delay (s) 24.3 22.9 11.6 10.5

Approach LOS C C B B








Draft

Appendix C

Traffic Signal Warrants

Ap

pen

dix

C

Major Street: County Road 4

Minor Street: County Road 26

Scenario: 2050 Total Traffic

T�Intersection: Yes No X

Number of Lanes: 1 Lane X 2 or More Lanes

Flow Condition: Urban (Resricted Flow) Rural (Free Flow) X

Warrant 1 � Minimum Vehicular Volume

Number* %

Criteria NO

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak

Warrant 2 � Delay to Cross Traffic

Number* %

Criteria NO

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants

Section ComplianceEntire %Volume

Approach Lanes 1 2 or more

Free Flow Restricted FlowFlow Condition Free Flow

*Number is the Average Hourly Volume (AHV)

All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:480 720

1658

2135

12072

7286

170

Entire %Section Compliance

198948

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

150

195

Free Flow Restricted Flow Free Flow Restricted Flow

120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

1508 100% Satisfied:862 180

53

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

63

26 53

75 50 75

42

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition

480 720 600 900Major Street

Aproaches

50

1940

DRAFT




T�Intersection: Yes X No




Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak YES

PM Peak YES

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak


Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak YES

PM Peak YES

Criteria YES

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants





All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:


1678

2051

120146

146175

170


194932

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

336

364


120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

1342 100% Satisfied:757 158

158

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

249

98 195

75 50 75

141

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition


Aproaches

50

1687

DRAFT



Scenario: 2050 Background Traffic





Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak YES

PM Peak YES

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak


Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak YES

PM Peak YES

Criteria YES

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants





All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:


1674

2051

120146

146175

170


194931

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

335

364


120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

1339 100% Satisfied:757 158

158

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

249

97 195

75 50 75

140

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition


Aproaches

50

1687

DRAFT



Scenario: 2017 Existing Traffic





Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak


Number* %

Criteria NO

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants





All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:


929

1138

12081

8197

170


108517

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

186

202


120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

743 100% Satisfied:420 87

34

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

49

17 34

75 50 75

19

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition


Aproaches

50

936

DRAFT


Minor Street: County Road 5 / Hagan Road






Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak YES

PM Peak YES

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak


Number* %

Criteria NO

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants





All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:


1270

1555

120147

200240

170


147706

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

594

364


120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

676 100% Satisfied:467 97

63

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

80

31 63

75 50 75

45

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition


Aproaches

50

1191

DRAFT



Scenario: 2050 Background Traffic





Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak YES

PM Peak YES

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak


Number* %

Criteria NO

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants





All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:


1261

1552

120147

198238

170


147703

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

589

362


120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

672 100% Satisfied:466 97

61

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

79

30 61

75 50 75

42

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition


Aproaches

50

1190

DRAFT



Scenario: 2017 Existing Traffic





Number* %

Criteria YES

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak


Number* %

Criteria NO

AM Peak NO

PM Peak NO

Criteria NO

AM Peak

PM Peak

Restricted Flow

Signal Warrants





All Aproaches

170

600

150% Satisfied:

120% Satisfied:

100% Satisfied:


700

861

12081

110132

170


81390

Minor Street

Approaches

120

900

327

201


120% Satisfied:

80% Satisfied:

373 100% Satisfied:258 54

34

Traffic Crossing

Major Street

150% Satisfied:

44

17 34

75 50 75

23

Approach Lanes


Volume1 2 or more

Flow Condition


Aproaches

50

660

DRAFT

biggars lane landfill expansion environmental assessment€¦ · r.j. burnside & associates...

Documents