Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
419 Andover Civil & Traffic Peer Review
11/17/2020 Town of North Andover Mail-Rt. 114 Improvement Project ----------- NoRTR I DOVER Massachusetts Jean Enright<jenright@northandoverma.gov> Rt. 114 ImprovementProject Chuck Gregory<cgregory@gpinet.com> Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:13 AM To: Jean Enright<jenright@northandoverma.gov> Hello Jean, Yes, we have been in coordination with the developers on this site. We do not take exception to their proposed curb cut locations. We may need to require some minor curb geometry modifications along Route 125 (Andover Street)to incorporate a geometry/striping change they have asked us to investigate. That is ongoing. With regard to the plans, we have not made any significant changes to the plans since we submitted in July. Do you have access to those plans? If not, would you prefer we sent you the Pavement Marking and Signing Plans?We have been coordinating our design with VHB for the Royal Crest project. I am not familiar with the Eaglewood Plaza changes. What are they proposing? Thanks, Chuck GPIChuck Gregory, P.E. d +1 (603)766-5222 1 c+1 (603)715-6835 An Equal Opportunity Employer From: Jean Enright<jenright@northandoverma.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:17 AM To: Chuck Gregory<cgregory@gpinet.com> Subject: Rt. 114 Improvement Project Hi Chuck, I hope you are well.The applicants for the redevelopment of 419 &435 Andover Street have indicated that they have had meetings with both MassDot and GPI regarding proposed adjustments to the design of Project 608095 and that both were receptive to their curb cut adjustments to accommodate their proposed redevelopment project. The Planning Board public hearing for this project opens on Tuesday, November 24. Can you confirm that what they are communicating is accurate? Do you have any concerns regarding their proposed project as it relates to the proposed Rt.114 improvements? Also, would it be possible for you to send me the most recent plans for each segment of the Rt. 114 improvements.Trinity Financial has submitted their traffic study which will be peer reviewed by Vanasse&Associates in the near future. Their 11 .. I - -. .. 11ra.n— _.n___,__'_—_111._ rn i n n 46 n —ACcc— --A O,.:..,...I_..,.., FW O n 4POOc-nnrCC=4 4/7 11117/2020 Town ur North Andover Mail-Rt. 1i4 Improvement Project study incorporates the proposed roadway improvements; however, the planning Board isn't yet familiar with those details. In the last couple of months they have had Eaglewoud Plaza, Royal Crest Eatabsa, and now 409&435 Andover Street before them—o lot going on in that stretch! Jean _ Sincerely, Jean Enright Planning Director Town uf North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Phone 978.888.9533 Fax 078.688.9542 Email: janright@northandoverma.gov Web: www,0odhAndoverK8A.gov All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit uo online a/vmmw north and o,e,ma.nov. Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure thal minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It ma) contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. if you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,copy or disclosure of this communication is strictl� prohibited and to notify the sender immediately. ^°..//~.//..../~..~,~..//.. 19 `.~..-........ ... 146 Dasoomb Road Andover,MA 01810 978.794.1792 TheEngineeringCorp.00m TEE: Crete Design[Innovate The Engineering Carp Ms. Jean Enright November 23, 2020 Planning Director Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 419-435 Andover Street, Methuen, MA Civil and Traffic Engineering Peer Review Dear Ms. Enright and Members of the Planning Board: On behalf of the Town of North Andover, TEC, Inc. reviewed documents as part of the civil engineering peer review for the proposed site to be located at 419-435 Andover Street. Crosspoint Associates, Inc. ("Applicant") submitted the following documents prepared by Bohler Engineering and Vanasse and Associates, Inc. (VAI), which were reviewed by TEC for conformance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws and Site Plan Standards, and generally accepted industry standards: ® Site plan entitled "Proposed Site Plan Development"prepared by Bohler Engineering, dated October 22, 2020 ® Architectural Plans, prepared by Phase Zero Designs, dated October 22, 2020 ® Special Permit Application and Site Plan Review, prepared by Crosspoint Associates, Inc. ® Transportation Impact Assessment— Proposed Commercial Redevelopment 419 & 435 Andover Street— North Andover, Massachusetts; prepared by Vanasse and Associates, Inc., dated October 2020; ® Site plan entitled "Proposed Site Plan Development - #419-435 Andover Street, Town of North Andover, Massachusetts;" prepared by Bohler Engineering; dated October 22, 2020. Upon review of the documents and plans, TEC has compiled the following comments for the Board's consideration: Site Plan Review 1. The Applicant should confirm on the Site Development Plans the sight distance triangles in both directions from each driveway (or one direction if right-in / right-out driveway). The Site Development Plans should indicate the areas within those sight triangles where vegetation and signage are to be removed or kept low. 2. The Applicant should provide a vehicular circulation plan which shows that the Town of North Andover's largest fire truck can adequately enter, exit, and circulate the site in the event of emergency and ensure designated fire lanes are clearly depicted. 3. The Applicant should provide a vehicular circulation plan which shows that a garbage truck (front-loading) can adequately circulate the site and access the dumpster enclosures. Note that the truck should maintain the same directional flow during pick-up as traditional vehicles. 4. The Applicant should provide a turning template showing an extended pick-up truck circulating the drive-through at the bank and the restaurant. This abrupt type turn has been noted as a concern at the neighboring Burger King drive-through. 5. The Site Development Plans do not appear to provide sufficient space along the bank drive aisle for a standard vehicle to reverse and exit the site from the last parking space to the south. 6. The Site Development Plans do not depict the reconstruction of accessible ramps or the reapplication of new crosswalks across driveway locations which are to be relocated or modified. The plans do note that these are T:\T0758\TO758.12\Docs\Letters\TO758.12_Peer ® , , Review#1.docx 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development November 23, 2020 The Engineering Carp Page 2 of 5 to be completed as part of a future MassDOT improvement project; however, than plans should depict these improvements at the expense of the Applicant in the event the site construction commences/is completed prior to the MassDOT project(as noted in the TIA). 7. The off-street parking dimensional requirements note that pavement width for one-way aisles is 16-feet and two-way aisles is 25-feet. (Section 195-8.5.A.). ® The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 is noted as 9.1-feet. ® The drive aisle circulating Bertucci's is noted as 20-feet(understanding that this is partially an existing condition). According to Section 8.5.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board. 8. The plan set should include a signage summary table for all on-site and off-site signage. A sign summary shall also be included which depicts the sign legend, sign size, and sign lettering dimensions in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 9. The Site Plans should provide an area for loading, deliveries, drop-offs, etc. associated with the proposed bank, restaurant, and urgent care facility. 10. All compact parking spaces should be labeled on the site plan, including proposed (new) spaces and existing spaces to remain. 11. Along the northern property line (abutting map 24, lot 33), two different size angled parking spaces are shown. The Site Plans should clearly label the dimensions of all parking spaces. The size of these spaces also impacts the width of the proposed drive aisle, currently shown as 16-feet. 12. TEC believes that the intent of the Zoning Bylaw is to provide a stall depth of 18-feet for all angled parking. For 60-degree angle parking, TEC believes that the dimension between the drive aisle and curb line (measured perpendicular) should be 20-feet in order to accomplish an 18-foot depth. According to Section 8.5.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board. 13. TEC understands that much of the existing parking around Bertucci's is narrower than current Town zoning standards. The Applicant should consider providing an alternative that would redesign much of these spaces as standard while distributing other compact spaces to other locations on the site. This alternative may reduce the overall number of spaces provided. These alternatives should be presented for review by the Planning Board. 14. The Applicant should provide a review and confirmation that the existing accessible stalls at Bertucci's(including the associated hatched aisles, curb ramps, sidewalks)meet the latest version of the Architectural Access Board regulations. 15. The site does not meet the minimum requirements for number of total parking stalls. TEC understands that the Applicant is seeking a special permit to reduce the total number of spaces, and to allow compact spaces. 16. The TIA identifies bicycle racks on-site as a Transportation Demand Management measure. The Applicant should revise the plans to depict the location of racks. 17. The Applicant should note Do Not Enter signage on the back side of the STOP sign for the drive aisle parallel to Route 125 at the north end. 18. The Applicant should consider extending the beginning of the drive-through pavement markings further along the building and provide legend pavement markings at the start of the drive-through to indicate the lane purpose. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#1.docx Engineering r° es Solutions TEC 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development The Eng;neerinBCorp November 23, 2020 Page 3 of 5 19. Sheet C-901 of the Site Development Plans depicts a crosswalk detail. Please modify the detail to show the typical distance to stop-line where applicable. It is preferred that the crosswalk markings also be 12-inches thick. 20. Whereas additional pedestrian signage details are expected to be added to the plan based on a prior comment, please note that the height of the bottom of the sign shall be 7'-0" similar to the height shown on Sheet C-902 with the Do Not Enter sign. 21. The typical concrete and monolithic concrete sidewalk details on Sheet C-902 notes only a minimum sidewalk cross-slope of 1/8" per foot(approx. 1.0%). Please revise the detail to note a maximum 1.5% cross-slope with 0.5%± tolerance to ensure all sidewalks are below the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) maximum of 2.0%. 22, The Applicant should indicate where snow storage is to be provided on the Site Layout Plan. Traffic Impact and Access Study 23. Andover Street in the vicinity of the project is under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation(MassDOT). The Applicant should further coordinate with MassDOT on the issuance of a Permit to Access State Highway. 24. The project site, along State Highway Layout (SHLO) results in 2,446 new ADT for methodology identified by the MassDOT Private/Public Development Unit(PPDU). With the existing Bertucci's on-site; the development may result in greater than 3,000 trips per day (understanding that Ethan Allen and day spa will lessen this burden) by segmentation. The Applicant shall coordinate with MassDOT PPDU on whether further permitting is required through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA) office. 25. The traffic study area includes six (6) intersections in the vicinity of the site; including four (4) existing site driveways. Based upon the size and scope of the development, TEC finds that the study area as provided in the TIA is sufficient to capture the effects of the project on surrounding roadways based on Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) guidelines set forth by MassDOT. This includes an evaluation of intersection in which the site-generated trips increase the peak hour traffic volume by more than 5 percent and/or by more than 100 vehicles per hour per MassDOT's TIA Guidelines (Section 3.I.C). The Applicant should at a minimum provide a calculated value of% impact for the intersection of Peters Street at Andover Street (the third intersection in the triangle network). If an impact of greater of 5% or 100 trips persists, the Applicant should provide additional operational analysis and site related mitigation as warranted. 26. Although Comment #3 above indicates TEC's concurrence with the study area as defined in the TIAS, TEC notes that the Applicant should coordinate with MassDOT on the potential project impacts at additional intersections which are currently under the purview of reconstruction as part of off-site transportation improvements along Route 114 and Route 125 by others. Additional intersections may be included in a coordinated signal network which may require further evaluation by the Applicant should minor signal timings be modified as a result of the Applicant post-occupancy. 27. The Applicant has provided traffic data collection within the study area based on counts provided by MassDOT published as part of the Route 114 corridor improvement project. The Applicant should provide a date for the counts which was not provided in the study. Based on the date of the Route 114 Corridor Functional Design Report publication, TEC assumes that the 2020 traffic volumes are pre-COVID and do not need to be adjusted accordingly. 28. The TIA utilizes the FDR's 2040 traffic volumes as for the 2027 No-Build and Build scenarios. These therefore provide a significantly conservative analysis condition for the TIA. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#1.docx Engineering rr 's Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development TEV November 23, 2020 7heEngineering Corp Page 4 of 5 29. The safety analysis section for the report covers the recent crash history of the study intersections and their evaluation as part of a Road Safety Audit conducted in 2014. Much of the improvements outlined in the RSAs are incorporated in the MassDOT Route 114 project independent of the site work. Considering the length of time that has passed since the RSA, the Applicant should provide a description of any substantial change in crash history, if necessary, so that additional safety improvements could be identified along the corridor intersections. The Applicant should discuss opportunities to incorporate these into the MassDOT project. 30. The TIA does not provide sight distance measurements or commitments for the proposed site driveway locations. The Applicant should provide this information. 31. TEC does not object to the conservative application of pass-by and internal capture trips and confirms that the application of such rates applied in the TIA would represent a conservative scenario. 32. The TIA indicates that the existing trips associated with Ethan Allen and the day spa use were subtracted from the projected volumes prior to application of trips associated with the urgent care, bank, and restaurant. These calculations were not included in the TIA. The Applicant should provide record of removal of these trips, the retention of Bertucci related trips, and documentation on how each trip total for existing uses was determined. 33. There are minor volume discrepancies between the No-Build, Trip Generation, and Build traffic volumes. An example is the Route 114 westbound in the AM condition where the Build through movement should be 998, not 997. These changes may be attributed to rounding errors in Excel worksheets. Please do a check of all volume calculations to ensure the validity of the analysis. 34. The Applicant has provided no support information for trip distribution for the site over the study area with exception of the final percentages. The traffic volumes within the study area per roadway and direction changes significantly with the peak hours and throughout the day. At a minimum, the Applicant should provide calculations for the trip distribution to confirm the utilization of this trip distribution per intersection approach. 35. The comments as noted above may result in modifications to the results of the capacity and queue analysis and therefore TEC reserves the right to provide additional comments and improvement recommendations upon completion of the peer review comment responses. 36. The capacity and queue analysis analyze the signalized intersections using the Synchro Percentile Delay methodology instead of the industry standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 or 6t" Edition methodology. Although TEC does not necessarily disagree with the usage of Synchro methodology, the Applicant should provide specific justification for its use over HCM, such as a specific parameter that is preventing the use of HCM methodology. 37. TEC notes that under MassDOT improvements, the intersection of Route 114 at Route 125 will continue to operate at similar conditions with and without the project. The project is not expected to greatly impact operations at this location. TEC concurs with this assessment. 38. TEC notes that similar to Route 114 at Route 125, the intersection of Route 114 at Route 113 will continue to operate at similar conditions with and without the project. The Applicant should modify the Table 7 to show the actual delay and V/C ratio for the Route 133 NB approach in the weekday evening condition. 39. Operations along the North Site Driveway at Route 125 are expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour(noted as LOS D in the weekday evening however this is mistyped and should read LOS F). Neither Tables 7 nor 8 reported expected queue length. The Applicant should revise the tables to include queue length. 40. The TIA mentions a queuing analysis for the coffee/donut shop drive-through but provides no documentation on the projected queue length for the drive-up window. This is also the case for the on-site bank use, which is T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#l.docx Engineering ® ®s Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development TEC November 23, 2020 The Engineering Corp Page 5 of 5 providing a drive-through teller window. More documentation for the drive-throughs should be provided by the Applicant. 41. The Applicant should continue to coordinate with MassDOT on off-site mitigation opportunities whether provided by the Applicant or incorporated in the Route 114 corridor project. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions concerning our comments at 978-794-1792.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TEC, Inc. "The Engineering Corporation" Peter F. Ellison, PE Samuel W. Gregorio, PE, PTOE, RSPI Civil Engineer Senior Design Engineer T:\T0758\TO758.12\Docs\Letters\TO758.12_Peer Review#1.docx Engineering rr °s Solutions Today. MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Jean Enright FROM: Mr. Shaun P. Kelly Planning Director Associate Town of North Andover Vanasse &Associates,Inc. 120 Main Street 35 New England Business Center Drive North Andover,MA 01845 Suite 140 Andover,MA 01810-1066 (978)474-8800 skel 1_y(_Wjrdva.coin DATE: December 9, 2020 RE: 8731 SUBJECT: Response to Peer Review Comments Proposed Mixed-Use Development 417 &435 Andover Street North Andover,Massachusetts .INTRODUCTION Vanasse&Associates Inc.(VAI)has prepared this technical memorandum in response to comments issued by the Town of North Andover's transportation peer review consultant,The Engineering Corp,Inc. (TEC), as outlined in their November 23,2020 peer review letter on the above reference project. As requested by TEC, additional information has been provided relative to the traffic analyses included in the initial Transportation Impact Assessmentl (TIA)prepared for the project, including: updated analyses based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology, supplemental information relative to anticipated traffic impacts at the intersection of Route 125 with Route 133,trip distribution methodology and calculations, analysis of vehicle queuing both on-site and at the signalized study area intersections on Route 114 and storage requirements for the proposed coffee shop and bank drive-through lanes. Additionally,revised site plans have also been developed that address comments issued by TEC relative to the proposed site layout, on-site circulation, truck access and sight distance requirements at all driveway locations. In order to facilitate your review of this document,it follows the general outline of the November 23,2020 comment letter, with responses related to the site plan review provided by Bohler Engineering, PC and comments related to the traffic study provided by VAL 1 Transportation Impact Assessment—Proposed Commercial Redevelopment, 419&435 Andover Street,North Andover,Massachusetts; VAI, October 2020. GA8731 North Andover,MANemosV Enright 120920.docx 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Site Plan Review Comment 1: "The Applicant should confirm on the Site Development Plans the sight distance triangles in both directions from each driveway(or one direction if right-in/right- out driveway). The Site Development Plans should indicate the areas within those sight triangles where vegetation and signage are to be removed or kept low." Response: Sight distance triangles have been added to the plans for each driveway in the appropriate directions. Notation has also been added to the site layout plan indicating that vegetation within these areas shall be no taller than 3 feet. All proposed and existing signage,including the existing Bertucci's sign on Route 114, have been located to ensure they are not located within the required sight triangle at each location. Comment 2: "The Applicant should provide a vehicular circulation plan which shows that the Town of North Andover's largest fire truck can adequately enter,exit,and circulate the site in the event of emergency and ensure designated fire lanes are clearly depicted." Response: Fire truck turning exhibits are included with this response and have been provided to the Fire Department. Confirmation was received from the Town that these were acceptable as submitted. Comment 3: "The Applicant should provide a vehicular circulation plan which shows that a garbage truck (front-loading) can adequately circulate the site and access the dumpster enclosures.Note that the truck should maintain the same directional flow during pick-up as traditional vehicles." Response: A garbage truck turning exhibit is included with this response. Comment 4: "The Applicant should provide a turning template showing an extended pick-up truck circulating the drive-through at the bank and the restaurant. This abrupt type turn has been noted as a concern at the neighboring Burger King drive-through." Response: An AASHTO passenger car turning exhibit is included with this response to show circulation around the drive-through uses. This is a 19-foot-long by 7-foot-wide vehicle that captures most reasonable vehicle sizes. Comment 5: "The Site Development Plans do not appear to provide sufficient space along the bank drive aisle for a standard vehicle to reverse and exit the site from the last parking space to the south." Response: An AASHTO passenger car turning exhibit is included with this response to show this turning movement. Comment 6: "The Site Development Plans do not depict the reconstruction of accessible ramps or the reapplication of new crosswalks across driveway locations which are to be G:\8731 North Andover,MA\MemosV Enright 120920.docx 2 relocated or modified. The plans do note that these are to be completed as part of a future MassDOT improvement project; however,than plans should depict these improvements at the expense of the Applicant in the event the site construction commences/is completed prior to the MassDOT project(as noted in the TIA)." Response: Accessible ramps and crosswalks have been added across new driveway locations, and curbing and sidewalk have been added at existing driveway locations to be closed,based on the assumption that the project will be constructed in advance of the MassDOT roadway improvements. Comment 7: "The off-street parking dimensional requirements note that pavement width for one-way aisles is 16-feet and two-way aisles is 25-feet.(Section 195-8.5.A.). • The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 is noted as 9.1-feet. • The drive aisle circulating Bertucci's is noted as 20-feet (understanding that this is partially an existing condition). According to Section 8.S.A.,these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board." Responses The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 has been increased to 11 feet as shown on the revised Site Plans included with this response. This width has been deemed sufficient for this layout and use as shown by the provided turning exhibits. No work or changes are proposed within the majority of the Bertucci's restaurant parking lot in order to allow them to remain operational. Relief is requested as required for these dimensions. Comment 8: "The plan set should include a signage summary table for all on-site and off-site signage.A sign summary shall also be included which depicts the sign legend,sign size, and sign lettering dimensions in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD)." Response: A sign summary table has been added to the Site Plans for all signage located on- site with the appropriate requested information. Comment 9: "The Site Plans should provide an area for loading, deliveries, drop-offs, etc. associated with the proposed bank,restaurant,and urgent care facility." Response: Truck loading turning exhibits are included with this response to show access and areas for loading during off-peak hours for each of the uses on-site. Comment 1.0: "All compact parking spaces should be labeled on the site plan,including proposed (new) spaces and existing spaces to remain." Response: A parking legend has been added to the Site Layout Plan to differentiate compact parking spaces from standard parking spaces on-site. 0:\8731 North Andover,MA\Memos\Enright 120920.docx 3 Comment 11: "Along the northern property line (abutting map 24, lot 33), two different size angled parking spaces are shown. The Site Plans should clearly label the dimensions of all parking spaces. The size of these spaces also impacts the width of the proposed drive aisle, currently shown as 16-feet." Response: Additional dimensions have been added to the parking spaces which have consistent depth,width and angle. Comment 12: "TEC believes that the intent of the Zoning Bylaw is to provide a stall depth of 18- feet for all angled parking. For 60-degree angle parking, TEC believes that the dimension between the drive aisle and curb line (measured perpendicular) should be 20-feet in order to accomplish an 18-foot depth. According to Section 8.5.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board." Response: The angled parking spaces at the site are designed and dimensioned to be 18.0 feet in depth, angled at 60-degrees, as was interpreted to be required by the Zoning Bylaws. If TEC's interpretation is correct, the applicant would request relief for the parking spaces as proposed. Since the angled spaces are located along 16-foot- wide one way drive aisles,alongside a 12-foot drive-through lane,there should be ample width for parking and vehicular access. This allows the project to maximize the width of the landscape buffers. Comment 13: "TEC understands that much of the existing parking around Bertucci's is narrower than current Town zoning standards. The Applicant should consider providing an alternative that would redesign much of these spaces as standard while distributing other compact spaces to other locations on the site.This alternative may reduce the overall number of spaces provided. These alternatives should be presented for review by the Planning Board." Response: The intent is to minimize impacts to the existing Bertucci's restaurant and within the associated parking lot as part of the proposed project. As noted by TEC, adjustments to the existing parking lot would reduce the number of parking spaces and impact the landscape in this area.The restaurant has experienced a challenging year during the pandemic, and the hope is to allow their operations to continue as much as possible throughout the duration of construction on-site, by minimizing the limit of work. For these reasons, the parking spaces, drive aisles and ADA access is proposed to remain as existing and the applicant would request any necessary relief. Comment 14: "The Applicant should provide a review and confirmation that the existing accessible stalls at Bertucci's(including the associated hatched aisles,curb ramps, sidewalks)meet the latest version of the Architectural Access Board regulations." Response: See response to Comment 13. Comment 15: "The site does not meet the minimum requirements for number of total parking stalls. TEC understands that the Applicant is seeking a special permit to reduce the total number of spaces, and to allow compact spaces." Ga8731 North Andover,MAMemosV Enright 120420.doex 4 Response: As indicated, the applicant is seeking a special permit for a reduction in the total number of required parking spaces, and to allow compact spaces. Comment 16: "The TIA identifies bicycle racks on-site as a Transportation Demand Management measure.The Applicant should revise the plans to depict the location of racks." Response: The bicycle rack location has been depicted on the Site Plans. Comment 17: "The Applicant should note Do Not Enter signage on the back side of the STOP sign for the drive aisle parallel to Route 125 at the north end." Response: "Do Not Enter"signage has been added to the back side of the appropriate"Stop" sign for the drive aisle parallel to Route 125. "Do Not Enter"pavement striping has also been added to this location. Comment 1S: "The Applicant should consider extending the beginning of the drive-through pavement markings further along the building and provide legend pavement markings at the start of the drive-through to indicate the lane purpose. 19.Sheet C- 901 of the Site Development Plans depicts a crosswalk detail. Please modify the detail to show the typical distance to stop-line where applicable. It is preferred that the crosswalk markings also be 12-inches thick." Response: The drive-through striping has been extended along the building in order to further emphasize the designated purpose of this lane and drive-through queue length. The current design can accommodate 15 passenger cars in the marked drive-through lane. Comment 19: "Sheet C-901 of the Site Development Plans depicts a crosswalk detail. Please modify the detail to show the typical distance to stop-line where applicable. It is preferred that the crosswalk markings also be 12-inches thick." Response: Notation has been added to this detail in order to clarify the typical distance to a stop-line where appropriate on Sheet C-901. The detail has also been modified to show 12"wide pavement striping. Comment 20: "Whereas additional pedestrian signage details are expected to be added to the plan based on a prior comment, please note that the height of the bottom of the sign shall be 7'-0" similar to the height shown on Sheet C-902 with the Do Not Enter sign." Response- Notation has been added to this detail to specify this minimum height of 7'-0"from the proposed grade to the bottom of the sign as noted in the"Do Not Enter" sign detail on Sheet C-902. Comment 21: "The typical concrete and monolithic concrete sidewalk details on Sheet C-902 notes only a minimum sidewalk cross-slope of 1/8"per foot(approx. 1.0%).Please revise the detail to note a maximum 1.5% cross-slope with 0.5%± tolerance to G:A8731 North Andover,MA\MemosV Enright 120920.docx 5 ensure all sidewalks are below the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB)maximum of 2.0%." Response: The detail has been revised to note a maximum 1.5% cross-slope with +0.5% tolerance in order to ensure that all concrete sidewalks meet the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board(AAB)maximum cross-slope of 2.0%. Comment 22: "The Applicant should indicate where snow storage is to be provided on the Site Layout Plan." Response: Several snow storage areas have been identified on the Site Plans.As required and once capacity on site is exceeded, snow will be removed and transported off site. Traffic.liugnet and Access "tad Comment 23: "Andover Street in the vicinity of the project is under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). The Applicant should further coordinate with MassDOT on the issuance of a Permit to Access State Highway." Response: The applicant has held a meeting with MassDOT District 4 staff to review the proposed redevelopment project, including proposed modifications to the site access plan as contemplated in the MassDOT corridor improvement plans to Turnpike Street (Route 114) and Andover Street (Route 125). Additionally, the applicant has also met with the design consultant and MassDOT project engineer developing the Route 114 corridor improvement plans, has provided and will continue to coordinate the site access design with the future improvements prepared for the corridor. Comment 24: "The project site,along State Highway Layout(SHLO)results in 2,446 new ADT for methodology identified by the MassDOT Private/Public Development Unit (PPDU). With the existing Bertucci's on-site; the development may result in greater than 3,000 trips per day(understanding that Ethan Allen and day spa will lessen this burden) by segmentation. The Applicant shall coordinate with MassDOT PPDU on whether further permitting is required through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA) office." Response: The applicant will consult with the Public/Private Development Unit prior to the filing for the Permit to Access State Highway, relative to the need for future permitting through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. It is noted that while conservatively not accounted for in the TIA traffic analysis,the internal capture between the various land uses on site, thereby resulting in less external trips,coupled with the removal of trips associated with the commercial space to be razed as part of the Project results in daily trip generation increases that fall below the thresholds requiring the preparation of an Environmental Notification Form. Comment 25: "The traffic study area includes six (6) intersections in the vicinity of the site; including four (4) existing site driveways. Based upon the size and scope of the development, TEC finds that the study area as provided in the TIA is sufficient to GA8731 North Andover,MA\MemosV Enright 120920,doex 6 capture the effects of the project on surrounding roadways based on Traffic Impact Assessment(TIA) guidelines set forth by MassDOT. This includes an evaluation of intersection in which the site-generated trips increase the peak hour traffic volume by more than 5 percent and/or by more than 100 vehicles per hour per MassDOT's TIA Guidelines (Section 3.I.C). The Applicant should at a minimum provide a calculated value of % impact for the intersection of Peters Street at Andover Street (the third intersection in the triangle network). If an impact of greater of 5% or 100 trips persists, the Applicant should provide additional operational analysis and site related mitigation as warranted." Response: The study area evaluated as part of the TIA was selected to include those locations expected to accommodate the majority of project-related traffic increases, both new and pass-by,as well as those locations currently under design along the Route 114 and Route 125 corridors. In order to identify whether projected traffic increases at the intersection of Peters Street and Andover Street meet the criteria to justify additional operational analysis the increase in peak hour trips associated with the Project, as well as the percent increase in peak hour volumes were evaluated. While this location was not included in the Functional Design Report (FDR) prepared in support of the Route 114 corridor improvements,the proximity to the downstream intersections within the triangle at Route 114 allow for the determination of traffic arriving and departing this location via both locations, to allow for an estimation of total traffic volumes at this location during peak hours. Based on this methodology, the total traffic volume at this location ranges from approximately 2,100 vehicles per hour (vph) during the weekday morning and Saturday midday peak hours to approximately 2,850 vph during the weekday evening peak hour. Project-related traffic increases are projected to amount to approximately 20 new vehicle trips during the weekday morning and weekday evening commuter peak hours and approximately 30 peak hour trips during the Saturday midday peak hour. This level of increase amounts to an approximately 1 to 1.5 percent increase in peak hour traffic volumes as compared to future No- Build conditions. As such, Project-related traffic increases are not expected to meet either the minimum vehicular volume increase or percentage increase criteria to warrant additional study of Project-related impacts at this location. In order to ensure that no significant safety concerns have been previously identified at this location, MassDOT's Top Crash Location database were also reviewed to ensure this location is not identified as a Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) cluster location, due to frequency and/or severity of crashes occurring at this location. Based on a review of this data, no safety deficiencies were identified at the intersection of Route 125 and Route 133. Comment 26: "Although Comment#3 above indicates TEC's concurrence with the study area as defined in the TIAS, TEC notes that the Applicant should coordinate with MassDOT on the potential project impacts at additional intersections which are currently under the purview of reconstruction as part of off-site transportation improvements along Route 114 and Route 125 by others. Additional intersections may be included in a coordinated signal network which may require further GA8731 North Andover,MA\Memos\!Enright 120420,docx 7 evaluation by the Applicant should minor signal timings be modified as a result of the Applicant post-occupancy." Response: The applicant has held a meeting with MassDOT and their design engineer to review the Route 114 corridor improvement project and has also provided the traffic projections and analyses associated with the redevelopment project for review and inclusion in the future corridor improvement design as warranted. The proponent will continue to coordinate with MassDOT as part of the review of the Permit to Access State Highway application. Comment 27: "The Applicant has provided traffic data collection within the study area based on counts provided by MassDOT published as part of the Route 114 corridor improvement project. The Applicant should provide a date for the counts which was not provided in the study. Based on the date of the Route 114 Corridor Functional Design Report publication,TEC assumes that the 2020 traffic volumes are pre-COVID and do not need to be adjusted accordingly." Response: The traffic volume data collected and utilized in the June 2020 Functional Design Report were collected in March 2017 when area schools were in session. These volumes were seasonally adjusted to reflect average month conditions in accordance with MassDOT guidelines. As part of the initial review of the existing condition traffic volume data utilized for this assessment, traffic volumes that were recently collected by MassDOT in 2019,which preceded the COVID-19 epidemic,were reviewed to identify whether there was any significant change in traffic volumes since the collection of traffic counts utilized in the 2020 FDR. Based on a review of data collected at Count Station 5060,located on Turnpike Street, south of Route 133,average daily traffic volumes experienced a moderate decrease as compared to the data collected in 2017. As such, the collected data is assumed to provide a representative, if not slightly conservative assessment of existing conditions. Comment 28: "The TIA utilizes the FDR's 2040 traffic volumes as for the 2027 No-Build and Build scenarios. These therefore provide a significantly conservative analysis condition for the TIA. Response: VAI concurs that the horizon year evaluated results in a conservative assessment of future traffic conditions within the study area. Comment 29: "The safety analysis section for the report covers the recent crash history of the study intersections and their evaluation as part of a Road Safety Audit conducted in 2014. Much of the improvements outlined in the RSAs are incorporated in the MassDOT Route 114 project independent of the site work. Considering the length of time that has passed since the RSA,the Applicant should provide a description of any substantial change in crash history, if necessary, so that additional safety improvements could be identified along the corridor intersections. The Applicant should discuss opportunities to incorporate these into the MassDOT project." Response: VAI has reviewed the crash history at the signalized intersections of Route 114 with both Route 133 and Route 125. The crash data evaluated as part of the Road GA8731 North Andover,MA\Mcmos\J Enright 120920.docx 8 vi Safety Audit2 revealed an average of approximately 11 crashes per year at the intersection of Route 114 with Route 133 and approximately 17 motor vehicle collisions per year at the intersection of Route 114 at Route 125. A review of the crash data evaluated as part of the TIA (2015-2019), as compared to the data provided in the RSA(2010-2012),reveals the crash rate have declined to 9 crashes per year at Route 114 and Route 133 and 14 crashes per year at Route 114 and Route 125. The typical manner of collision, consistent with the RSA, were angle collisions at the intersection of Route 114 with Route 133 and rear-end collisions at the intersection of Route 114 and Route 125. The proposed site layout has been designed in response to a number of recommendations outlined in the Road Safety Audit and incorporated into the Route 114 corridor improvement plans. Specifically,the site access on Route 114 has been designed to eliminate the existing curb cut located closest to Andover Street to consolidate site access to one location. Additionally,the site access onto Andover Street has been modified to reflect proposed improvements along the corridor, including improved pedestrian connectivity between the project site. As a significant benefit of the Route 114 improvements will be the addition of exclusive bicycle lanes on Route 125 to facilitate bicycle traffic, including that from the nearby Merrimac College campus,the project site incorporates a bicycle rack,proximate to the Starbucks restaurant. Comment 30: "The TIA does not provide sight distance measurements or commitments for the proposed site driveway locations.The Applicant should provide this information." Response: Sight lines have been reviewed at both the existing and proposed site driveway locations on both Route 114 and Route 125. In general, sight lines along both corridors are excellent, with greater than 425 feet of available sight distance provided to and from the driveway locations in both directions, though it is noted that an existing Bertucei's sign is currently located in the sight triangle for the proposed Route 114 driveway location. Based on sight distance criteria as defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the available sight distance meets the minimum sight distance requirements for a 50 mph travel speed,in excess of 35 mph speed limit on Route 125 and 30 mph speed limit on Route 114. The sight distance triangles provided on the updated site plans reflect the higher 50 mph design speed. Comment 31: "TEC does not object to the conservative application of pass-by and internal capture trips and confirms that the application of such rates applied in the TIA would represent a conservative scenario." Response: VAI concurs that the use of a pass-by rate below the average rate suggested by the ITE as well as taking no credit for internal trips, as ITE practice recommends, results in a conservative projection of project impacts. 2 Road Safety Audit-Merrimack College Route 114, 125 and 133,Town of North Andover-BETA Group,Inc.,January 14, 2014 GA8731 North Andover,MA\Memos\1 Enright 120920.docx 9 - Comment 32: "The TIA indicates that the existing trips associated with Ethan Allen and the day spa use were subtracted from the projected volumes prior to application of trips associated with the urgent care, bank, and restaurant. These calculations were not included in the TIA.The Applicant should provide record of removal of these trips, the retention of Bertucci related trips, and documentation on how each trip total for existing uses was determined, Response: The trips associated with the Ethan Allen and salon that were eliminated as part of the future Build condition analyses are based on observed peak hour traffic volumes to and from these uses. Additionally,the future Build condition volumes include the reallocation of existing Bertucci's trips to account for the elimination of the Route 114 driveway most proximate to the Bertucci's restaurant, Trip generation calculations are provided as an attachment to this memorandum. Comment 33: "There are minor volume discrepancies between the No-Build, Trip Generation, and Build traffic volumes. An example is the Route 114 westbound in the AM condition where the Build through movement should be 998, not 997. These changes may be attributed to rounding errors in Excel worksheets. Please do a check of all volume calculations to ensure the validity of the analysis." Response: VAI concurs that minor discrepancies on the order of one vehicle per hour were identified due to rounding. This minor level of variation would not result in any notable change to the findings of the TIA, with the identified traffic volumes still representing a conservative scenario due to the use of future 2040 horizon traffic volumes and the conservative nature of the trip generation methodology. Comment 34: "The Applicant has provided no support information for trip distribution for the site over the study area with exception of the final percentages.The traffic volumes within the study area per roadway and direction changes significantly with the peak hours and throughout the day. At a minimum, the Applicant should provide calculations for the trip distribution to confirm the utilization of this trip distribution per intersection approach." Response: As a significant percentage of Project-related traffic will be pass-by in nature, or primarily local in nature due to the land uses proposed(coffee shop and bank),trip distribution patterns were developed based on a review of existing traffic patterns within the study area, specifically approach volumes on the critical intersection approaches that provide access to the site via Route 114, Route 125, and Route 133. During the critical weekday morning and Saturday midday peak hours, approach trip distribution patterns utilized in this assessment,based on the average of all three peak periods, were generally within 1 to 2 percent of the calculated average value. It is noted that during the weekday evening peak, traffic is more oriented in the westbound direction on Route 114(40 percent calculated versus 30 percent utilized in the assessment). However, this deviation would result in only 4 more additional entering and exiting movements from this approach (with a corresponding reduction on the remaining approaches),which would not result in a notable change to projected traffic volumes at study area locations. It is also noted that 40 percent of the pass-by trips, which constitute more of the total site- generated trips than new trips,were assigned via Route 114 from the west. 0:\8731 North Andover,MA\Memos\l Enright 120920,doex 10 V%we Comment 35: "The comments as noted above may result in modifications to the results of the capacity and queue analysis and therefore TEC reserves the right to provide additional comments and improvement recommendations upon completion of the peer review comment responses." Response: Comment noted. Comment 36: "The capacity and queue analysis analyze the signalized intersections using the Synchro Percentile Delay methodology instead of the industry standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 or 6th Edition methodology. Although TEC does not necessarily disagree with the usage of Synchro methodology, the Applicant should provide specific justification for its use over HCM, such as a specific parameter that is preventing the use of HCM methodology." Response: The capacity analyses were reanalyzed utilizing the HCM 6th Edition methodology for both existing and future conditions,following the implementation of MassDOT improvements along the Route 114 corridor. It is noted that under existing conditions the HCM methodology it not supported at the intersection of Route 114 and Route 125 due to the phasing at this location,however all future year analyses reflect the HCM analysis methodology. The results of the revised capacity analyses are provided as an attachment to this document. As summarized, the overall conclusion of the TIA,that Project-related traffic increases are not expected to result in a notable impact to area traffic operations remains unchanged. It is noted that a lane designation error in the prior capacity analyses for northbound and southbound traffic on Route 133 has been corrected as part of the revised analyses. Comment 37: "TEC notes that under MassDOT improvements, the intersection of Route 114 at Route 125 will continue to operate at similar conditions with and without the project. The project is not expected to greatly impact operations at this location. TEC concurs with this assessment." Response: Comment noted. Comment 38: "TEC notes that similar to Route 114 at Route 125,the intersection of Route 114 at Route 113 will continue to operate at similar conditions with and without the project.The Applicant should modify the Table 7 to show the actual delay and V/C ratio for the Route 133 NB approach in the weekday evening condition." Response: As requested by TEC,the actual delay and V/C ratios for the Route 133 northbound approach, and all other intersection approaches, have been reported based on the updated HCM capacity analysis results. Updated capacity analysis worksheets are provided as an attachment to this document. Comment 39: " Operations along the North Site Driveway at Route 125 are expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour(noted as LOS D in the weekday evening however this is mistyped and should read LOS F). Neither Tables 7 nor 8 reported expected queue length. The Applicant should revise the tables to include queue length." G\8731 North Andover,MA\Memos\J Enright 120920,docx 1 1 Response: As requested by the TEC, the projected queue lengths at both the signalized intersections on Route 114 and on the unsignalized driveway approaches to both Route 114 and Route 125 are provided in the updated capacity analysis summary tables. As noted, the maximum projected queue lengths at all site driveway locations are predicted to extend approximately 1 to 2 vehicles during peak hours of Project-related traffic activity. Comment 40: "The TIA mentions a queuing analysis for the coffee 1 donut shop drive-through but provides no documentation on the projected queue length for the drive-up window. This is also the case for the on-site bank use,which is providing a drive- through teller window. More documentation for the drive-throughs should be provided by the Applicant." Response: As part of prior permitting efforts, VAI has collected drive-through queue data at a number of coffee shops that provide a drive-through lane,which are provided as an attachment to this document. As noted,the average drive-through queue for to coffee shop with drive through ranged from 5 to 8 vehicles during the weekday morning peak hour, with 95th percentile morning queues of approximately 8 to 13 vehicles. Similarly,for a Saturday the average queue ranged from 1 to 6 vehicles, with a corresponding 951 percentile queue of 3 to 11 vehicles. The proposed coffee shop drive-through has been designed to accommodate the 951 percentile queue. Based on VAI's experience with drive-through banks,on average approximately 42 percent of bank customers use the drive-through facility. In order to provide a conservative (high) assessment of drive-through facility use for the Project, a 50 percent drive-through facility utilization was assumed. Further, it was observed that average transaction times in the drive-through ATM facility are approximately 1.5 minutes per vehicle. As presented in the TIA, it is expected that the bank component of the Project will generate the highest number of trips during the Saturday midday peak,when 45 total arrivals, 23 of which would be drive-through trips, are predicted. Assuming random arrivals and a service flow rate of 1.5 minutes per transaction during the hour results in a theoretical 95th percentile vehicle queue of approximately four (4) vehicles, with an average queue of one (1) vehicle. A review of the site plan indicates that the bank drive-through facility can accommodate this level of queueing without impeding access to parking or internal circulation. Comment 41: "The Applicant should continue to coordinate with MassDOT on off-site mitigation opportunities whether provided by the Applicant or incorporated in the Route 114 corridor project." Response: The applicant has met with MassDOT and their design engineer to review the Route 114 corridor improvement project and has also provided the traffic projections and analyses associated with the project for review and inclusion in the future corridor improvement design as warranted. The proponent will continue to coordinate with MassDOT as part of the review of the Permit to Access State Highway application. GA8731 North Andover,MA\MemosU Enright 1209204oex 12 IN In conclusion, the results of the updated analysis confirm the findings of the initial TIA prepared for the Project, that, the proposed site redevelopment is not expected to result in a notable impact to area traffic operations. The applicant has updated the proposed site plan to reflect continents issued by TEC,which are provided as an attachment to this document. GA8731 North Andover,MA\MemoaU Enright 120920,docu 13 Al APPENDIX TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS TRIP DISTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS VEHICLE QUEUE DATA SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS VEHICLE TURNING TEMPLATE PLANS TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA FUNCTIONAL DESIGN REPORT Corridor Improvements on Route 114 between Waverly Road and Willow Street/Mill Road-North Andover,MA Table 2 BASE YEAR TRAFFIC-VOLUME SUMMARY Daily Volume Peak Hour Directional Location/Time Period :(vpdlo V61urne v; h b K factor °,�a Distribution`' Route 114 east of North Andover Mall south driveway: Weekday Average 34,150 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2,010 5.9 51%EB Weekday PM Peak Hour - 2,530 7.4 59%WB Route 114 west of Andover Street: Weekday Average =32,200 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2,320 7.2 56%EB Weekday PM Peak Hour 2,510 7.8 57%WB Route 114 west of Pedestrian Crossing Signal: Weekday Average 42,950 Weekday AM Peak Hour -- 3,260 7.6 62%EB Weekday PM Peak Hour 3,520 8.2 58%WB Andover Bypass(Route 125)south of Rite Aid Driveway: Weekday Average 21,450 Weekday AM Peak Hour - 1,890 8.8 74%SB Weekday PM Peak Hour 2,080 9.7 68%NB Hillside Road north of Route 114: Weekday Average 3,900 Weekday AM Peak Hour 370 9.6 84%SB Weekday PM Peak Hour 390 10.0 73%NB Route 114 west of Stop&Shop Driveway: Weekday Average 27,950 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2,120 7.6 52%EB Weekday PM Peak Hour 1,980 7.1 51%WB '2020 Average traffic volumes in vehicles per day. b In vehicles per hour. °Percentage of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour. d WB=westbound,EB=eastbound,NB=northbound,SB=souhbound. - 2614 'Fflf( C v,,l 21 u r i "0,0 0) 0,360(d0) iv 20.00®t9� 0 _... 400 an ,. .... MEMEM Fact TCCS LoaBona TIAC..TMAo glpInimmoollane 'w' A. the Wd nftm, em i.ciwtadWlM cMs 1219/2020 �y liiBr3Not.udalbtr ..Sign F7mher t Fhe Sign Flwher Flahwr CKOV Right m Overhead mearU" Praparo to Sip F�lmph sf,r Rdlroed 819.Fleeher A Removed Rave�bt®elpn Lane RMS Scho4flberwd Fluher L••At SchooFFllp vq FOmher Sahoa4w.vd Fk bar sP ft"Fteehar Symbw.Signal Sipn FWha TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Trip Generation Corridarlson-.Proposed Retail Plaza Redevelopment-419&435 Andover Street-North Andover,Massachusetts; Time Period Plaza Redevelopment(Fully Occupied) Existing Delta Pass-By Ethan Total Starbucks Medical Office Bank Total Starbucks Pass-by Bank Pass-By Total New Trips Allen/Salon Trips Weekday Morning Peak Hour Entering 107 11 19 137 -84 -5 -89 48 3 134 Exiting 102 3 13 118 -84 -5 -89 29 5 113 Total 209 14 32 255 -168 -10 -178 77 8 247 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Entering 51 5 35 91 -41 -10 -51 40 21 70 Exiting 51 13 34 98 -41 -10 -51 47 15 83 Total 102 18 69 189 -82 -20 -102 87 36 153 Saturday Midday Peak Hour Entering 103 9 45 157 -82 -13 -95 62 20 137 Exiting 103 7 43 153 -82 -13 -95 58 2 151 Total 206 16 88 310 -164 -26 -190 120 22 288 TRIP DISTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS Total Approach Volume Percentage From AM PM SAT AM PM SAT AVG SAY Route 114 EB 1050 719 657 23% 14°/® 18%® 18% 20%® Route 114 WB 1267 2071 1102 28% 40% 30% 33%® 30% Route 133 NB 434 658 413 9%® 13% 11%® 11% 10% Route 125 NB 353 559 50 8% 11% 14% 11% 15%® Route 125 SB 1467 1131 1027 32% 22% 28% 27% 25% TOTAL 4571 5138 3704 100% 100% 100%® 100% CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Table 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 2020 Existing 2027 No-Build' 2027 Build' LocationlTime Vehicle Queue Vehicle Queue Vehicle Queue Period/Movement V/C' Del' LOS" (Avg/Max) - V/C Delay LOS (Avg/Max V/C Delav LOS Av�/Max) Route 114 at Route 133 Weekday Morning: Route 114 EB LT 0,11 27 C 34/56 0,17 11 B 18/41 0,17 11 B 18141 Route 114 EB TH/RT 0.55 20 C 359/373 0.57 21 C 296/451 0.58 21 C 302/457 Route 114 WB LT 1.04 121 F 149/276 0.51 is B 51/104 0.52 15 B 52/110 Route 114 WB TH/RT 0.74 59 E 333/397 0.40 16 B 193288 0.40 16 B 1931288 Route 133 NB LT 0.25 60 E 11/34 0,12 53 D 11/32 0.12 53 D 11/32 Route 133 NB TH 0.0 0.0 E 010 0.35 43 D 92/148 0.34 43 D 921148 Route 133 NB RT 0.91 63 A 212/335 0.88 46 D 111/168 0,89 47 D 116/174 Route 133 SB LT 0,49 63 E 24/48 0.14 43 D 23/48 0.14 43 D 23/48 Route 133SB TH/RT 0.92 62 E 345/379 Route 133SB TH - 0.84 60 E 243/400 0.84 60 E 243/400 Route 133SB RT - - - - 0.29 24 C 0/35 0.29 24 C 0/35 Overall 50 D 27 C r - 27 C - Weekday Evening. Route 114 EB LT 0.64 47 D 1691/334' 0.71 24 C 91/232' 0,71 24 C 91/2321 Route 114 EB TH/RT 0,51 27 C 2251283 0.49 19 B 185/245 0,49 20 B 187/248 Route 114 WB LT 0.78 40 D 1211132 0,48 12 B 62/100 0,49 12 B 631102 Route 114 WB TH/RT 0_91 30 C 1181118 036 27 C 361/5031 0.76 27 C 3601503' Route 133 NB LT 0.55 59 E 51/142' 0.32 29 C 33/67 0.32 29 C 33/67 Route 133 NB TH 0.0 U A 0/0 1.19 >80 F 277=/451' 1.19 >80 F 2771/4511 Route 133 NB RT 0.97 67 E 419`/647' 0.69 37 D 40/104 0.70 38 D 43/108 Route 133 SB LT 1.59 >80 F 1251/1981 0.43 30 C 40/77 0,43 30 C 40/77 Route 133SB TH/RT 0.79 42 D 347/379 - - - - Route 133SB TH -- -- 0,77 46 D 163/303 0.77 46 D 163/303 Route 133SB RT - 0.36 26 C 18/64 0.36 26 C 18/64 Overall 49 D 39 D 39 D Saturday Midday: Route 114 EB LT 0.34 27 C 95/193 0,48 9 A 56/109r 0.48 9 A 14/31 Route 114 EB TH/RT 0,40 20 C 163/275 0.45 14 B 146/182 0.46 14 B 187/255 Route 114 WB LT 0,67 45 D 51/75 0.29 9 A 32/51 0.30 9 A 33/62 Route 114 WB TH/RT 0.82 45 D 111177 0,45 15 B 151/186 0,46 15 B 1591217 Route 133 NB LT 0,43 54 D 491111' 0,28 26 C 21/53 0.28 26 C 11/46 Route 133 NB TH 0 0.0 A 0/0 1.08 >80 F 102/255' 1;08 >80 F 50/91 Route 133 NB RT 0,66 37 D 231297 0.58 32 C 0139 0.61 33 C 1122171 Route 133 SB LT OA5 51 D 62/109 0.34 26 C 26/62 0,34 26 C 9146 Route 133SB TH/RT 0:73 39 D 262/326 - - Route 133SB TH - - - 0.84 53 D 85214' 0,84 53 D 99/158' Route 133SB RT 0.55 26 C 0/46 0,55 26 C 941162 Overall - 35 D - 27 C - - 27 C - 'Future year 2027 No-Build and Build condition analyses reflect Route 114 corridor improvements. 'Volume to capacity ratio_ `Percentile delay in seconds per vehicle. 'Level of service. `Volume exceeds capacity,queue in theorethieally infinite. 1951 percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer_ NB=northbound;SB=southbound;EB=eastbound;WB=westbound;NEB=north-eastbound Table 1 (Continued)- SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 2020.Existin __ 2027 No-Builds 2027 Builda Vehicle Vehicle Locari Vehicleon(fime Queue Queue Queue Period/Movement V/Cb Delay` LOS" (Avg/Max) V/C Delay LOS {Av ax) V!C Delay. LOS Av Route 114 at Route 125 Weekday Morning: Route 114 EB LT 0,02 29 C 2/11 0.02 is B I/8 0:15 19 B 13/31 Route 114 EB TURT 1 16 >80 F 704e/862r 0.92 50 D 683°/824r 0.92 49 D 670e/812r Route 114 WB LT 0.57 35 C 52/133 0.72 43 D 48/164 0.71 42 D 48J162 Route 114 WB TH 0.67 30 C 326/528 0.57 23 C 298/458 0.60 26 C 375/459 Route 114 WB RT 0.33 4 A 0/56 0.24 5 A 0/25 0.25 7 A 0/ Route 125 NB LT 0.31 49 D 51/93 0;27 45 D 35/68 0.27 45 D U2525 Route 125 NB TH 0.55 57 E 101/160 0,64 56 E 112/179 0.67 57 E 1 7/687 Route 125 NB RT 0.37 5 A 0131 r 0.53 49 D 22/17 0,53 49 E 28118 83 Route 125 SB LT L48 >80 F 792/1029 0.92 61 E 327l455r Oa94 65 E 3391476r Route 125 SB TH 0:57 42 D 201/295 4; Route 125 SB RT 0.02 0 A 0/0 Route5 SB TH/RT - -_ -= == 0.62 41 D 229/320 0.62 41 D " 231/325 Overall 97 F - 42 D 43 D Weekday Evening: - Route 114 EB LT 0.23 37 D 18/42 017 40 D 15/36 0.27 40 D 23/50 Route 114 EB TH/RT U3 41 D 385/475 0.81 35 C 324/426r 0.80 35 C 320/416r Route 114 WB LT 0:85 61 E 1141/2561 0.82 45 C 76/192r 0.82 45 C 76/188r Route 114 WB TH 0.90 42 D 624e/732r 0.91 36 D 4441610r 0.92 37 D 451/618r Route 114 WB RT 0.76 11 B 91/254 0.85 15 B 137/298 U5 15 B 150/346r Route 125 NB LT 0.62 54 D 142/223 0.56 31 C 88!144 0.57 32 C 88/144 Route 125 NB TH 0,78 63 E 195/2971 0.80 47 D 162/280r 0.80 47 D 162/280r Route 125 NB RT 0.19 1 A 0/0 0,21 26 C 0/0 0.21 26 C Route 125 SB LT 0,92 80 F 250/430r 0.81 48 D 136/217r 0.85 52 D 14o1z34r Route 125 5B TH 0,92 80 E 258/440r Route 125 SB RT 0,04 0 A O10Route - Overall 5 SB TH/RT _ U7 34 C 127/205 0,59 35 C� 131/211 43 D - 34 C Saturday Midday: - 34 C - Route 114 EB LT 0.07 26 C 2/11 0.08 13 B 5/17 0:19 13 B 56/112r Route 114 EB TH/RT 0.64 33 C 704e/8621 0.70 26 C 191/261 0;71 27 C 148/185 Route 114 WB LT 0.58 36 D 52/133 0.40 16 B 33/66r 0.41 16 B 33153 Route 114 WB TH 0.48 28 C 326/528 0.50 17 B 116/66F 0.41 19 B 133/53 Route 114 WB RT 0.40 4 A 0/56 0A0 10 A 0/2 0.54 11 B 53/19 Route 125 NB LT 21153 0,49 50 D 51/93 0.39 23 C 50/91 0.39 23 C 103/255r Route 125 NB TH 0.71 59 E 101/160 033 37 D 1081208r 0.74 38 D 4/40 Route 125 NB RT 0.31 4 A 0131 0.34 23 C 9/46 0.33 23 C 27/62 Route 125 SB LT 0.82 65 E 792e/1029r 0.69 34 C 90/135 0.72 34 C 85I214r Route 125 SB TH 0.84 66 E 201/295 Route 125 SB RT 0.02 0 A OJO _ Route 125 SB TH/RT -= - - 90/156 056 28 0,57 29 C . 0146 Overall 36 D 23 C - 24 C See notes at the end ofthe table. Table 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 20271~d7 itild 2027 Build Max Max Queue Queue Location/Time Period/Moydinent V/C Delay LOS (Veh) V/C Delay LOS Veh Route 114 at Eastern Site Driveway Weekday Morning: Route 114 WB 0.00 <5 A <1 - Eastern Site Driveway SB 0.00 <5 A <1 Weekday Evening: Route 114 WB 0.00 <5 A <1 -- Eastern Site Driveway SB 0.02 17 C <1 Saturday Midday: Route 114 WB 0.00 <5 A <1 Eastern Site Driveway SB 0.01 12 B <1 Route 114 at Western Site Driveway Weekday Morning. Route 114 WB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Western Site Driveway SB 0.01 13 B <1': 0.11 14 B <'1 Weekday Evening: Route 114 WB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Western Site Driveway SB 0.04 17 C <°1 0.14 19 C <1 Saturday Midday: Route 114 WB 0.00 <5 A <1'' 0.00 <5 A <1 Western Site Driveway SB 0.00 12 B <1; 0.13 13 B <1 Route 125 at the Northern Site Driveway Weekday Morning: Northern Site Driveway EB 0.00 <5 A <1' 0.24 >50 F <,! Route 125 NB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.11 <5 A <1 Route 125 SB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Weekday Evening: Northern Site Driveway EB 0.05 36 E <1 0.37 >50 D <2 Route 125 NB 0.01 <5 A <1 0.05 <5 A <1 Route 125 SB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Saturday Midday: Northern Site Driveway EB 0.01 25 C <1 0.24 39 E <1 Route 125 NB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.08 <5 A <1 Route 125 SB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Route 125 at the Southern Site Driveway Weekday Morning: Southern Site Driveway EB 0,00 19 C <1 0.22 23 C <1 Route 125 NB 0.00 <5 A <1' 0.00 <5 A <l Route 125 SB 0,00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Weekday Evening: Southern Site Driveway EB 0.04 24 C <1 0.12 14 B <l Route 125 NB 0.01 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 Route 125 SB 0,00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <i Saturday Midday: Southern Site Driveway EB 0.08 19 C <1 0.15 13 B <1 Route 125 NB 0.01 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <i Route 125 SB 0.00 <5 A <1 0.00 <5 A <1 'Volume to capacity ratio. bDelay in seconds per vehicle. `Level of service. NB=northbound;SB=southbound;EB=eastbound;WB=westbound HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Sum --ary 2020 AM EXISTING 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 OWN Lane Configurations TCaffe Uolam-e{vetilh) 6,9 998; "18 183, I63 j 18 CO7 288 33 _ 288 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 69 998 18 183 763 18 18 107 288 33 288. 10Q _.__ _. lnitialQ(Qb) veh 0 A (2 Q ' 0 0 Q o o Ped BikeAdl(A pbT) 1 00 1 00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.06 100 Parking Bus,Adj 1 00`:'; 1 ©0 1 OQ 1:00 1,00 ?00 ' 1.a0 10Q I;QQ 18Q 1-00 00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adf Sat Flow,,"I", lln 1817-, 1817 1817 1949 194g, 1949 1847 1847 , 1847 1988 88 Ad'Flow Rate,veh/h 71 1029 19 191 - 795 19 20 118 316 43 379 132 l . , Peak Flour Factor 0.97 Q 97. 0.97 0:96: 0,9fi 0:96 0;91 Q.91 Q 91 0 76 " Q 76 ,; 0 76 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 , 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,'vehlfi 628 .; 1879 35 ;-184, 1 2 4?1 26 :8b 129 347 87 411 u143 _ . Arrive On Green 0_31 0.54 0,52 0.02 0.10 0.09 0,28 0.29 0,28 0,28 0.29 0,28 fat ,vefiltt 1731 ;'� 3468 64 .. 3696 ! 88 :,.878 444 1189 1014 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 71 512 M 151 396 416 20 409 Grp Sat Flow(s);ueti/h/ln 1731.. 1726 r 1$06 "t856 1851 1933 878 434 43 0 510 1 1633 1Q14 0 i900 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 23.2 23.2 8.0 251 25.1 2,7 0.Q 30.8 3 2 0 0 31.3 Cycle G2 Clear 23 2 8 0. ?51 25.1 34:0 QW0 3f 8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,04 1,00 U5 1.00 0.73 1'00 0.26 Cant Grp Cap(c�;,Vehlh-" 62$ 935"1. 978 184 537 5fi0 8,0., 0 476 V/C Ratio(X) 011 0.55 0.55 'i 04 0,74 0.74 0.25 0.00 6.91 0.49 0 00 092 Ava�I,Cap{ca},yehth ;� 628 935 ' 978.-_ 't84' 864" 902 80 U 4fi ' $7 Q 554 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1 00 100 d 33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1 QQ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstreami#er(l) 1 00 .;. 00 100 _ 1 aQ f OQv` 100 140 OFOt}" 10r 10Q 0:Q0 4 00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27,3 17.9 17.9 43.6 49,9 49.9 58,7 Q.0 41.4 59.0 fncr Delay(d2},slueh _, 01. 23 <? ?.7.2 9;0 8:fi 1;6 O:Q 2i7 4 3 "0.0 41.3 0 0 21";1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0.0 60 0,0 0.0 U 0.0 U 0.0 0 Q 0.0 °bile BackOfQ{50° ), eh/!n 9.6` 10:a 54 139 14.4 `Q.6 0.0 15;2 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh" - LnGrp "elay(d},s/veh 27.4 2p 2,.; �20:2 �:�120;.8 58:9 58.5 fi0E3 ' 0.0 63 Q= 62.4 LnG .LOS C C C F E E E A E E A 1pproach-.Vol,vehlh_ �. 11`t9 � �� � ��, � `�10Q5, 404: - Approach Delay,s/veh 20,6 M5 5�4.. 62.9 62.5 Approach LOS -C �>+ E Phs i3u6ttonG+Y+Rc);-s:; 42:2 3T.8 4()0_." 12 Q' 68:0 I'll - :-_ Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5 6.0 4.0 5,0 M 6;x Green St G 0 .0nma 4 Max Q Clear Time(g c+ll),s 2.0 27.1 36.0 10.0 25.2 36.0 Greer'Ext Titre(p c), "Q:1 5:6 t© 0 ;O:O t.8,5 O:Q HCl4i.6th CEr[leiay . .. HCM 6th t_OS D of HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2020 AM EXISTING 1: Route 133& Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 71 1048 191 814 20 434 43 511 v/c Ratl©� 0:1 �06 <O.TJ t?: 2 0.23 0.70 0 29` 0:83 Control Delay 22.8 27.7 67.2 54.0 36,0 31.5 35.2 48.4 Queue Belay" 00 00;0` ` Q:g . 0,0 0:00,0' Total Delay 22zl' .8 27.7 67.2 54,0 36.0 31.5 35,2 48.4 Quausietgth � ) 359 ,149 333 11 212 `24 345. ; Queue Length 95th(ft) 56 373 #276 397 34 335 48 379 tntpmai Iar)k'Dist(ft) 121 �'. �� 273 637 Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Base Ga"aa v h 444 1w883 248: 1798 89 627 .�150 p tY,(!►R.) . Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spilltia i 'Cap Reif .0' "0 0 `'0 '0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E�educedwlc Ratio�` �' 0:1.6 0;56 : 0 Z U:A15 0.22 0:69 0,2, 9.82 #. 95tti" ercen6te volume exceeds capacityr,-queue may tie longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 AM EXISTING 2-. Route 125 & Route 114 112/09/2020 Lane Configurations 0 _ tt r t r t r Trafflc,Ualuine(vph) 4 1259 64 105 947 258 ,. 68 130 ;138 684 2Z 11 Future Volume(vph) 4 1259 64 105 947 258 68 130 138 684 279 11 loeaf Flo4ii(vphpl) 1.900� 1900, 190Q; 790Q 19Q0 19DQ '-1900 490Q, 'I900 190r? �19Qti, >,:1900 Lane Width(ft) 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 2°la� 1°T Storage Length(ft) 100 0 300 300 160 75 300 75 Storage Lanes Taper Length(ft) 25 25 25 25 Laiietlttl Factor �1�00 Os5 0.95 �1:Q0:� 0.95 h.QO; 1:Ot): . 1>:QO1,Q0 ;1..00 1.Q4 °: 1.00 Frf 0.993 0.850 0,850 0.850 FIt Protected='' 0,950 :> r� 0 95Q i3,95.0 (}:950 �. Said.Flow(prot) 1676 3444 0 1736 3592 1607 1752 1844 1777 1778 1872 1803 FIt(?ermitted 0,163 0.�10 ,. . ° .0:950 0:950 Satd,Flow(perm) 288 3444 0 192 3592 1607 1752 1844 1777 1778 1872 1803 Right Turri.on Red :.Yes Yes:: _ ;Yes. `Ye5 �. � . Satd.Flow(RTOR) 4 293 182 182 Link Speedinph) 3030 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 305 1279 705 355 Travel Ti�ne'(s} 6.9 s 29.1 16.0 8`1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 Q.92 0.92 Adj.Flow(vph):. 4 1339, �-68 :119 1Q76 293 72 337 ;14.5 74 303 12 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group4Ffaw(vph 4 14U , 0` : :119 1076` 293 72 1,37 145 743 3Q3 12 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No LaneRhgnment Left Left Right Left; Left Right , _Left Left Right :Left -Left Right Median Width(ft) 11 91 12 12 Link Offset(ft} 0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.07 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.01 0.86 0.99 0.99 0,84 Turning Speed Oph) 15 9 15. 9 15 0 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector(ft) 0 0 0 6 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20' 6 20.. 20 6 20 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Detector 1 Queue(s) 0.0 0.0 0:0 0:0 .0.0 Q.0 0.0 0.0 Q0 0.0 0<0 Detector 1 Delay(s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Postion(ft) `, 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex GI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend'(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 AM EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route_114__ 12/09/2020 =B EBR B W,BT R _ m Rrotecte�i?hases ` 1 2, 4 4 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 4 3 Deteotor Phase 1 & 5 2 4 4 4. 3 3 3 Switch Phase Mrnnoum In�6ai�(sj 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5;0 5-0 5.0 5:0 5.0 '6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 26.0 10.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 26.0 26.0 26-0 Total Splits) 12.0 43.0 12;0 43;0 43.0 25A 25:0 16.0 �40:0 � 40:0 40.0 Total Split(%j 10.0% 35.8°10 10.0% 35.6% 35.8% 20.8% 20.8% 20.8% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Maximum Green(s} 6.0 37.6 7.0 37-0, 37 0: 19-0 1 : 19;0 34.9 �:34:6 34:0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Tune(s) 2.0 16 1:0 2,0 2.0: 2:0 20 2.0 2:6 ,. 20 2:0 Lost Time Adjust(s) -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total host Time(s)' �4 0 �4,0 4.0 4.0 4,b ,4:0 4:0 i 4.0 6:0 �:6.6 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag. Lead Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Y.es Yes Yes , Ygs Yes ,Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None in None C-Min C-Min No None Norie None None None Act Effct Green(s) 42;2 42.2 53.5 53.5 53.5 16.1 16,1 16.1 34.0 34,0 34.0 Actuaterjg%CRatio `6:35 0,35 6:45 0.450.45` ' 0.13 013 6:1302$ 0, 80.28 v/c Ratio 0.02 1.16 0.57 0.67 0.33 0.31 0.55 0.37 1.48 0.57 0.02 Co'niir6f Delay, 28.8 117.3 34.6 30:4 4.1 49.1 56.6 '5.4' 258:1 41.8' 0.:1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total flelay 28'8 117,3 34 6 30.4' 4..1 49.1 %6 5.4 "�258A 418 01, LOS C F C C A D E A F D A Approach Delay 117.1 25.6 34.1 '193 2 Approach LOS F C C F Area Type: Other Cycle Length::120' Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset-117(98%),Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL,Start of Green, Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.48 Intersection Signal Delay:97.4 Intersection LOS:F Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 2:Route 125&Route 114 4- 0 01 NO �006 Elmo Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2020 AM EXISTING 2: Route125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 z Lane Group Flow(vph) 4 1407 119 1076 293 72 137 145 743 303 12 V/c Ratio= 0,16 : 1.16; it.57 0,67 0.33 0:31 6.55 V 1.48 ON, 0:02 ; Control Delay 28.8 117.3 34.6 30.4 4..1 49.1 56.6 5.4 258.1 41.8 01 Queue Delay; 00 0;0 0:0' 0.0 Ost) 0.0 0.0 a.0 O.Q 0.0 t7.0 Total Delay 28.8 117.3 34.6 30.4 4.1 49.1 56.6 5.4 258,1 41.8 0.1 Clueuri Lengh 50th�ft� 2 �7a4 : 52; 326 b 1 _0792261Q Queue Length 95th(ft) 11 #862 #133 #528 56 93 160 31 #1029 295 0 Infernal 'Ink;Disf eft} 225 1199 625 275 Turn Ba Length ft 100 300 300 160 75 300 75 Y g � ) _ . Base Capacity(�tph} v. 193 ` 1213 210 i601 :87s 322 46P 503 �530 641 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 p Spllback CapReductn t} 0 , b' , Q 0 0 000 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retiui huCc Ratio ° 0;02 1.16 0�24 0 43 D. 1 1.48 0.57 0.02 Volume ei seeds capacity;queue is itheorotiad in Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may tie.langer: Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 AM EXISTING 9: South Drive & Route 125 _ 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations haific 1to1,veh�-= 0 � . , 0 392 973• 6 Future Val;vehth 0 1 0 392 973 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Ch �l = None = None w Storage LeTrgth 0 - - - 1! n MOW Gage,# 0 0 Grade,%; 0 - - 0 -1 - FFtp �� v� Heavy Vehicles,4�° 2 2 2 2 2 2 "t_Fl0w 0 0 426;=1158' 7 " Conflicting Flow All 1488 1062 1065 0 - 0 Stage„1 "'1062 Stage 2 426 - - - - z;.:. Crlhcal H MY 642�x. 6.22 4;12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Cn6cal.HdwyrStg Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - w Pot Gap=1`Maneuver '`1-3j7 r 272� Stage 1 332 - - - 5ta�e`2 w Platoon blocked, %° - - May.Cap=1 tlain�ver 137 '272� � 654 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 137 - - - - Staff 1 .332 Stage 2 659 - - - - HCM Control Oslay,s� 18.3 — , 0 HCM LOS C 1777r77777,'' �v � 654 � � = -272�� _- - O.OQ4 - - � �� � a � � �=������s.�� � HCM Lane LOS A - C - HCM95tt9�ti11"Q(Veh) U , Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 AM EXISTING 11:.Route_125& North Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations ' T11 Traff%c Uo, veal! Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 392 979 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channeliied ; None None,. Storage Length 0 - - Veh m Me ,ian-Storage,;# t) Grade,% 0 fi - 0 -1 - P_,eak Hotrr Factor� �'92 - 9, 92l: 82 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 426 Conflicting Flow All 1491 1065 1066 9 - 0 Stage 2 426 Cnficat Hdwy :42 62� 4.1 z Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5,42 - Cttfical Ftdwy Stg 2 5 42.. Follow-up HdwY 3.518 3.318 2.218 RotCaip-1 Maneuver :; 3fi- 270 654, Stage 1 331 Platoon blocked,% - _ - Mov;Cap=1 Maneuyer 1 6 27tt 654 -- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 136 Stage 9 331 Stage 2 .659 Ys , ,omfico bi o HCM LOS A Capaaty(vet�tt} r 654 HCM Lane V/C Ratio FICM,Coitrol Delay is} Q -' p HCM Lane LOS A A a HCM 95th°!tile q(yeh} ' 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 AM EXISTING 13: Route 114 & East Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations ' ` ` Tra#ficValuehlh - �0 -OK.1028 0', 0 ' Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1026 0 0 0 e. Con5iclrg Peds;.#hr Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop v None :. Nohe . RT Chanrielizetl :: Nne Storage Length 0 V Metlian*rage,' 0 Grade,%_ - 4 -2 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mirntlo�v ��0 0 1115 �:0 0 0 Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 558 :Stage 1 Stage 2 - - - - Cn6cal m Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Ctafit�l Hr�uvy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy - - - 3.32 Pot Cap=1 tAarieuyer a3 0 ' 0 ` 473 rn , Stage 1 0 - 0 0 Stage . w< Platoon blocked,% - Mou Cep=1 Maneuver 473 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - Stege 1' Stage 2 - - - - - HCMControFDelay, HCM LOS A H Capacity{�►ehih) s HCM Lane V/C Ratio - HCM Control Delay 8) 0 HCM Lane LOS - A HCN195th%tile QNO Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 AM EXISTING 15: Route 114 & West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,slveh 0.1 Lane Configurations - v �' _ Traffic Uo1,vehJEi . t} 0. _1,425 Future Vol,veh/h Q 0 1r725 1 0 b Gonfltettr►g Peels;#fir 0 Sin Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop g v. RT Channehzed iWne :- None : on , Storage Length Y 0 Veh in;Metlia Storage,#; ,. 0 - Grade,% - 4 -2 0 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 10*f-pIQ v 11411 OUR Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - 558 Stage 2 - cnticarHawy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - Gr+hcat Htlwy Fallow-up'Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cep=1�Marreuuer g 0",, 47 v. Stage 1 0 4 - Platoon blocked,oo n N1oti Cap 1 aneauer � ; 473 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage.l Stage 2 - - - HMiitf.[)elay,s 12T HCM LOS B t Capacity:vehih) HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0,011 y a H�M'Confirol-Elel HCM Lane LOS B _ HAM 95th 6ti[e Q VO Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 AM NO-BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 R:d Lane Configurations t14 '1 `� ? I t r t . r Trafric Volume vet/h =72 1050 19 193 ; 802 19<: .; $ 1,12 303 35 303 1,05 `' Future Volume(veh/h) 72 1050 19 193 802 19 19 112 303 35 303 105 Inial Q(Clb),veh_: r 00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 o- Parking Bus� da ;.�' 1:00 19U 1.00 1:00: 1;00 1 00 .1.00 1:Q0 100 10D 100 a 100: Work Zone On Approach No No No No AdI Sat l=lousy,:Ueh/thin 1.847 1,81.7`' 1817 1979; :1919 1919 1847 178$ 1817 973> 2003 1,$83 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 74 1082 20 201 835 20 21 122 329 38 329 114 Peak Hour Facfor; 0;97 0 97 0.97'> 096; 0;96 0.96 :0 92 0,92 `0:92 0 92, 0;92 0 92, Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 4 4 2 6 4 3 1 9 Cap,veh/i 438 1so5 ' 35 393 2089 50. 175 351 37m3 281 393 399 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.55 0.53 0,08 0.57 0,56 0.05 0.20 0.18 0.05 0,20 0.20 SetFtow,jtehm, . ..w.k1769 �34 $ _. .64 1884 3638"w 87 :1759 T1788._.�1540 _1.8T _`2 Grp Grp Volume(v),veh/h 74 539 563 201 418 437 21 122 329 38 329 114 Grp Sat Flow{s)�vehLhlinl 759 1726 180fi >1884 1823 .1903 1759' 1 1540 1879 r2003` 1596 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.1 25.1 25.2 5.4 15.6 15.6 0,0 7.2 19.6 0.0 19.4 5.6 Cycle�'g c);s 21 25 I 25:2 5.4 15:6 _35:6 0 0 ""7.2 19 6 D,O 19:4 5:S` Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 A0 Lane Grp`Cap{c),uehlh Al, 948 992' 393 1046,, 1092 175 351 .373 281 393 399 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.35 0.88 0.14 0.84 0.29 Arad Cap(c�a);`vehlh 508 948 992 482 1046 ,1 Q92 230 385 403 340 432 _429; HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter{1) i.bo 100 1.00 .1:00 1 OQ 1:OQ 1 O(} 100, 1:O0 100 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 10.9 18.2 18.2 13.6 14.5 14.5 52.8 42.6 27.2 42.7 47.5 23.6 Incr Delay 24 - 1:0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °toile BackOfQ{ 0%);vehilri�.8 " 10.4 10.9 2.3 61 7.0' ::0.6 3.3 9:1 1:0 7 1,0 2,6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),sCueh 11 ff 20.6 20.6 14.6 15.6 15:6 53A 412 '46,0 42-.9 ''60.1 ' 2410 Ln6rp LOS 8 C C B B B D D D D E C Approach Voj;vehlh. 117f '1056 472 �481 Approach Delay,s/veh 20,0 15.4 45.6 50.2 Approach LOS B B D D Pts Duration{G+Y+Rc),�1.1 75.1 8:1 28.7 14:2 �72.0 81 28.6_ Change Period(Y+Rc),s &5 6.5 4.5 6.5 6,5 6.5 4,5 6.5 Max dreert"Setting(Gmax%4 57.5 7.5 24:5 18.5 53:5 7.5 N.-S Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I14,1s 17.6 2A 21.6 7.4 27.2 2.0 21.4 Gr"een Eiit Trne(p_c);s 0.1 6.5 '0,0 0.6 0.3 8.4 0.0 0.7 MCWthl6fr6616y" 26;8 HCM 6th LOS C Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2027 AM NO-BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12to812o20 Lane Group Flow(vph) 74 1102 201 856 21 122 329 38 329 114 ylc Ratio= 19 'Q&1 N ti8 0 A5 0.12 Q 42: .w0.66 Control Delay 9.4 23.4 16.0 17.6 33.9 51.3 22.2 32.7 64,6 4.9 Queue_Delay: 0 0 tl 0 0. O,D 00 0 q0 0:0 0:0; 0:0 Total Delay 9.4 23.4 _16.0 17.6 33.9 51.3 22.2 32.7 64.6 4.9 Queue Length 50th{ft).. 18 296 51 13 `23 Queue Length 95th(ft) 41 451 104 288 32 148 168 48 #400 35 Internal Cnk.Dist{ff� 1221 273r- Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Baseapac►ty`tuPtij 427 : 1797 _ . �:382 �910` � 194 369 531 349; 410 :556 . Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp�Ilback 0 �0 t? :<w Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re�ucep�ylc.Rabb`„ °017 .. 0 61 r.0 53 u 0 45 U 11 0:33 0:62 Q.11 WE � W..,. # 95thpercentileiroiume"exceeds capaafy,queue may tag longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 AM NO-BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Trlfoluriio(ueiltti; 4 1J24. .. fib: , 1 1 7 3. 74 7 2 : Future Volume(veh/h) 4 1324 68 110 996 271 71 137 145 719 293 12 liil. 10' 4, ;0-------------- Red Bike Adf(A_pbT) 1,00 100 1 00 100 1 00 1.00 100 100 Parlsul Bu$, ). : 9.(}Ct 10f t36 tt;' 118 1�Qt} . 1;Ot) 100 ;0t} 14{I 1.0t1` 100;; ' w Work Zone On Approach No No No No Ai)Sa1l (aw, allli 988 17Z6 1776`';1776= 1988 1 -1988 1847: `3847 `1921 1909 .1909 190s Ad)F.16w Rate,veh/h 4 1409 72 120 1083 295 75 144 153 782 318 13 peak Hpur Facktir 094 0:94. 094 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0;92 Percent Heavy W4,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cpp 204 `1521 "78 „ 166 .18$9 1250` 282 :225 288 854: 417 21 Arrive Can Green 0.02 0A7 0.45 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.28 018 SatFlca irk :; :_ 1fi92 ,3267 .1:67w 1893 3777 ,1fi85 1759 1847. 1628 3528 '1821 _ 74: Grp Volume(v),veh/h 4 726 755 120 1083 295 75 144 153 782 0 331 OrpSatFlouv(s),veh/h/1n1fi92 168T,`1746 1893.= 1$89 :;1685; :1759..`18 7 ;1628 17fi4 1896 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.2 50.9 51.3 4.1 25.3 6,9 4.6 9.4 10.8 27.2 0.0 191 Cycle Q Clear{g_c,a0 2� 50.9 51�3 4.125;3 6,9 :4.6, 9.4 10.8 27,2 1;00 191 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 Lane:Grp Cap(c);veh/h 204� 786 813; 166 :.1889 1z50 282 225 289 854 0 538 V/C Ratlo(X) 0.02 0.92 0,93 0.72 0.57 0,24 0.27 0,64 0.53 0.92 0.00 0.62 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 263 . 786 8 3 166 `1889. .1.250 ;282 . 293 ` 349 854 . 0 615. HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Z 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1Z, 1.60 Upstream Filter(Ij 1,00 100 100 1.00' 1;00 "l 0 1'00' 100 1.00 1,QD 0,p0 1,00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 18.4 31.6 31.8 29.1 22.1 5.1 44.5 52.7 47.1 46.5 0.0 39.2 Incr Delay{tl2);siveh 0.0 18:2 18 3 14.1, "1.3 0,4� =0.5 3.0 1.5 14:4 - b.o 1.5 Initial QDelay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 H 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %le BackOfQ(50%,vehllr0:1 24.1 25.2 '2.4 11.4 2.3 2'1 4.5 4.5 13.E 0,0 9.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGtp 6la'(d),s/veh 18.4 49.8 50.1 43.2 23.4 5.5 44.9 55.7 48.6 60,9 0.0 40:6 LnGrp LOS B D D D C A D E D E A D Approach %ol,"vehlh 1485 1498 372 11,13 Approach Delay,s/veh 49.9 21 A 50.6 54,9 Approach L68 D C D D Phs Duration�G+Y+Rc),s6.7 67.0{'1Q.6 41`.7, :19.0 62:7 33.0 � 19.3 Change Period{Y+Rc),s 6.0 *fi 5.5 *6 6.0 6A 4.5 6,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax,'(�:@ *53 5:1' �41` 5.0 52.0 ;28:5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11�,� 27,3 6.6 21.1 6.1 53.3 29.2 12.8 Greer'Ext Time'(p''c),s 0.0 10,2 0.0_ 1.9 0.0 ;A,0 A.0 . 0,6 CKey 447HCM th- b' HCM 6th LOS D Na HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Queues 2027 AM NO-BUILD 2: Route_125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 ON Lane Group Flow(vph) 4 1481 120 1083 295 75 144 153 782 331 ylc Ratio , vt 0.02 102 , O ti9 0 55 023 0 61 0.31 t)97 0:5t3 Control Delay 15,0 63.3 42.4 23.3 1.0 29.7 62.1 13.8 72.4 40.8 Queue Oe1ay `': a.0 . 0 0. 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 t)ra. AA Total Delay 15.0 63.3 42.4 23.3 1.0 29,7 62,1 13.8 72.4 43:8 Queue Length 5fti(ft}: 48 327 229 Queue Length 95th(ft) 8 #824 #164 458 25 _ 68 179 83 #455 320 (ntemat Link Dtst(ft} :`:. 225 119�9 ti25.; _ 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 Base Capacity(i8h} :223457_ :175 "1833 1256' 232;, 283 496 8U7 592 Starvation 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 r. Ftetluped,v0.69; : 059 0.23: : 0. 2 0 51 . Volume eO capasty;queue ; Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. °p®rcentile volurrie 0gge capaclty,`ga®ue may 8e_longer.`. _ v Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 AM NO-BUILD 9: South Drive & Route 125 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations �' '� Traffic Uoh vehfi U 1 0 4� ��� : 6` Future Vol,veh/h 0 1 0` 412 1023 6 CanfliCbing`Petls,�;#hK 00 � � Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized one Storage Length 0 - - - - - �/ h m Meiart Storage, Grade,% 0 - - .0 -1 - PealcHiur;Fac,�or 92 92 92 92 . 92 :s2 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 hivmt Flow _ �.: �� 0448 1112 Conflicting Flow All 1564 1116 1119 0 - 0 ->; Stage 1•` , Stage 2 448 - - - - Critrcal F�wy <:" 6,4?" 6.22 4:12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Cnticol hia►�ft2 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1�sManeuver, 123 `253 �624� Stage 1 313 - - - - >Stage 2 644 Platoon blocked,% Mav Cap=1 Maneuver 123 253 624 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 123 - - - �Stpge 1313 Stage 2 644 - - - - - HCM LOS C Capaciiy(uehfi)` 624 = 253 -: HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 - HCM'Gorrtrol delay(s) 0 -. 19�3 HCM Lane LOS A - C HCM 956°tile,Q(veh) 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 AM NO-BUILD 11: Route 125 &_North Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations Ttaific�(ol,uehlh� Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 412 1029 2 Conflicfirig Petls,#Ihr .0fl Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT,Chartnelized t�o�p���,� �- Nome �-:Nbn� , Storage Length 0 - - - �th 1nIViar�Stgrge�#;� t# 0= a- = , Grade,% 0 Peak HtiurFacMr 9 9 92 92 82 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 humtFlouv '� 0 �Q. 0 448;;�9182' . Conflicting Flow All 1567 1110 1120 0 0 w. Sg�1 ,ti 1119 . Stage 2 - Ctticel Hwy 6.42 6.22,:4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Cnt�l Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Po#Cap-1Maneuver: 122 Stage 1 312 - Stage Platoon blocked,% a W�Cap=1 Man u114 122 262 624 , Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 122 - Stage-1 312 . Stage 2 644 - - k C�niroF iJeiay,s 0 0 8 `; HCM LOS A HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCW:Controtely(s) �0 p HCM Lane LOS A - A - HCM 95th%tile Q(uefi) ;0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 AM NO-BUILD 13: Route 1.14 e �D� I ve 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 awl Lane Configurations tt 0 Tia ic�Vot,vehth 0 Q,79= ` Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1079 0 0 0 Conflie6ng`Peds;#!hrt? : 0 0: 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop R Channelize None = None� �=None ' Storage Length Veh edian Storage;# := 0 0 Grade,% 4 -2 - 0 - Peak HourtFedtor 92 <92 92',: 92 : 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvint Flow 4 0: .1173 "- Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 587 "Se I - Stage 2 - - - Ggficallidwy _ _ 6:04 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Cr�cal'Hiiuuy;5tg 2 Follow-up Hdwy PotGap=1 Maneuver `U =0 . Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stae2 � Platoon blocked,% Mou Cap-1 Maneuver - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - Stage a Stage 2 - - - - MEOW k�CM Confrot Delay, HCM LOS A Capaaty(vehm) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control:Deley HCM Lane LOS - A HCM 95th 'ble,Q{veh} Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 AM NO-BUILD 15: Route 114 &.West Drive 12/08/2020 IN SIMNIMMAN52110 WE M, Int Delay,s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations, Future Vol,"veh/h 0 0 1078 1 0 5 t3 ,Pd # 0 0 0 . 0 Q S190 Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop FAT+ ritrfiaxt .. Mine IUnne; iVorie; Storage Length - - - 0 Veh irf Mdtllan.Sferage, `0 Grade,% 4 _2 p Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 MVrttt Flauu 1112; 1' 0 =5 , Conflicting Flow All 0 0 587 Stage 1 Stage 2 _ a Cnt�cal Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - Oitttal kCtl�uyuStlg2 _ Follow-up Hdwy - - _ - 3.32 Pot,C�p✓1�Maneuyer`' t3 .. = �� tt= 't53 " : > Stage 1 0 - 0 Platoon blocked,% - - nRov Cap=1 ManeWer Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Sfage:l Stage 2 HCM Control Delay,s ' HCM LOS B HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.012 HAM Catttrol.Eielay{s} _ 15 HCM Lane LOS y B Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 AM BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 jig �F Lane Configurations TrafficUolume(veh/h) 72 1060 19 196 803 19 19105 Future Volume(veh/h) 72 1060 19 196 803 19 19 112 308 35 303 105' Initial Q(Qb),veh w' 0 0 0 0 q 0 0` 0 �fl 9 0 � 0 Ped Bike Adl(A pbT) 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Parinng°Bus, 1;00 `10,0 <� 1:00� 1�00 1.00 1 00> 1.OQ 1;00 1.OD 1;(l0 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Rd1 Sat Flaw,vettlh'!In 1847 1817 1817 1979: 191.9 1919 1841 1788' 1817 .`1973 2003 1883 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 74 1093 20 204 836 20 21 122 335 38 329 114 Peak.tiour°t=actor v`0:97 0 97 '0.97 0.96. : 0;96 0.06 fl.92 09Z 0.92- 0:92 0 92 0 92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 4 4 2 6 4 3 1 9 Cap,uetilh ;`:' 4,36 183 35 '389 2080 50 179 355 „378 280 393, 399 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.55 0.53 0.08 0.57 0.56 0.05 0.20 0.18 0.05 0.20 0.20 Sat Flouv;. eti/h .�1759 �1884 . 3639 ...87 �1759. �1788 " n1540; _�.1879 :2003 ,- 1,596 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 74 544 569 204 419 437 21 122 335 38 329 114 G Sat Flovu(s);veh/hlln 1903179 40 879 517 196rp Q Serve(g_s),s 2.2 25.7 25.7 &5 15.7 15.7 0.0 7.2 19.9 0.0 19.4 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_cj,s 2 2 25 7 �25:7 a.5 1,5 7 15.7 0:0 '7.2� 19.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.3900 2017 356 `3$ 3LanG fh 98 h 9 WC Ratio(X) 0.17 0.58 0.58 0.52 0,40 0.40 0.12 0.34 0.89 014 0.84 0.29 Avail Cap(c=a),veh/h 506 942 986 476 . 1042 1086 230 385 404 339 432 429 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(i):�; 1:00 fbo 1,D0 ' x1,00 1.,00 1 Q0 1.Q© 1.00 1:00 1 00 -;1.00 10ti Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 11.0 18.5 18.5 14.0 14.6 14.7 52.5 42.4 27.0 42.7 47.5 23.4 Incr Delay(tl2), lveli 0:2 2.6 2:5 1.1 1.2 1.1 :0.3 '0:6 19:5 . , 0:2 .12:6 0:4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 file BackDfQ(50°Io),veWin 0;9 �10 71 �� 11.2 � 2.3 6:7 � 7:0 0,6� � �3:3 9:3 1.0 � 11.0 -2,6 Unsig.Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 112 21.1 21.0 15.1 15.8 15,8 52.8 42.9 46.5 42.9 60.1, 23.8 LnGrp LOS B C C B B B D D D D E C Approach 1l01,vehith 110 1060 478 481 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.4 15.7 45.9 50.1 Approach LOS C B D D P0s Dur"a#lon(G+ +Rc);'s 11.1 74.8 8:1 28.9 14.3 71;6 4 28:6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 4,5 6.5 Max Or eii Setting(Ginax) s 9 5 57:5 7,5124,5 13.5 53:5 7.5 24.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ll),s 4,2 17.7 2.0 21.9 7.5 27.7 2.0 21.4 Green Ezf Time(p^c) s 0.1 6:5 0.0 0;5 0.3 8.4 0,0 0.7 Irts b rn _ _ H0M'6tfiCtrLDelay 27:1 HCM 6th LOS C Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2027 AM BUILD _1: Route 133 & Route_114 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 74 1113 204 856 21 122 335 38 329 114 vIc Ratio 0:19 0 62 0:59. 0:45 0:1,2 0.42 0 67 ;0:11 0 84 0:21 Control Delay 0.4 23,5 16:6 17.5 34.1 51.3 210 32.9 „65A 5.0 0.6 'Job, 0 0 O.6 . 0:0,. 0:0 0a? Total Delay 9.4 23.5 16.6 17.5 34.1 51.3 210 M9 65.1 5.0 Queue i_ength 50th ft .. 18 3Q2 52 193. 11 w92 116 23 243 Q { } Queue Length 95th(ft) 41 457 110 288 32 148 174 48 #400 35 v.. Internal lank Dlst{O) 1221 .273�; fi37 �: ;61.5 Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Base Cpaaty tvPh): , ; ` 428� `1,797` ` ,380 1914 194 360 , 53148 408 = 554 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spilltiack�Cap Re&u�6f` 0 0'- `0 Q: 0 t) 0 0 0 0 a Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce+tiwte Raha 0.1 0.11 .0.33 .4.fi3 0M 0 81 U;11 #' 95th percentile�olumeexceeds capaa#y queue may be longer,. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 AM BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 EB EBB E�i3 °:.; T IIYB NBI. NBt: NCi- Bl_ S13� SBR I Lane Configurations ' '� '�„ tt t � Traffic Volume(refaih) 32 1311 68 110 997 283 71 ti 144: 145;; 741 ,297 12 Future Volume(veh/h) 32 1311 68 110 997 283 71 144 145 741 297 12 _,. .. n _ a, Jnjtial Q(Qb) veh;. :.. 0 00 0 ;0 0` 0 " 0: �0 0 : 0 ;0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Add �1.4ti �1,00 1,00 �100 100 <;1:00; 100 1:00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adi.Sa#Flow,veh%t Jtn =° 1776 776 ,,1776� �1988� � �1988� 198� °�. �1847 18�7 �1921 � 1�09� "�1909 :1909 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 34 1395 72 120 1084 308 75 152 153 805 323 13 Peak Hour"Factor. 094' o.94 0.94 0:92 0:92 0:92 095``:' 0:95�` "0.95,.:' �0.92 0:92092 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,uett/h `229 1519.` `78 169 1$03 1212 282.0< 225 289 '854 517, 21- Arrive On Green 0.04 0.47 0.45 0.05 0,48 0.48 0.06 0.12 0,12 0.24 0.28 0,28 Sat Flowj vehih�:... 1692 32£r5, w16$;N.:. L893: . 3777 1.685 3759- _�184T,.-�1628,,..3528'.'1823. .73 Grp Volume(v),vehih 34 719 748 120 1084 308 75 152 153 805 0 336 Grp Sat Fl4w(s),veh/h%In`> 1692 1687 1746 - 1893: 1889 1685 1759; t847 : ;1628 1764 0 1896 Q Serve(g_s),s 1,3 50.1 50.5 4.2 26.5 7.9 4.6 9.9 10.8 28,2 0.0 19.4 ._. 4 2 26.5 79 4;6 9:9 10,8' 28:2 0:0 �19.4, Gycle`Q C1ear(g_c),s 1:3, 50.1 �50:5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,10 1A0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 Lane Grpt,aI-(c);ueh/h= " ;229 785 -12 169 '1803 1212 282` 225 289 s54 D 53$ V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.92 0.92 0,71 0.60 0.25 0.27 0.67 0.53 0.94 0.00 0,62 Avaii Cap( _a),ueh/h 250 785: 812 ;169 1803, 12,1-2 282 -293 ' 349 884 6 5' HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstreatri�Filtet(#) - 1>;00 1:00 100 1,00 1.00 1.00 100 1:OQ 1,U0 '1,00 01001.,00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 18.2 31.4 31,6 29.0 24.1 6.1 44.4 52.9 47.0 46.9 0,0 39.3 lnerDelay,(ti2};slveh 03 17.2 1-7.312.9 1.5 :0.5' 0 5�_ � '4.0 1:5 18.4 0.0 9.6 initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0,0 0.0 °lode Back fQ(50°la),vehlln 0:5 23.6 24.6 2;4 12.1 2.6 2- 4:9 4.5; 14.5 0.0 9.3 Unsig.Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 185 '48,6 48.8 41.9 25.6 6.6 44.9 56.9 48.5 65.3 00 40.9 LnGfp LOS B D D D C A D E D E A D Approach.Voi,vehih 1501 1512 380 1141 Approach Delay,s/veh 48.0 23.0 51.2 58.1 Approach LOS D C D E Phs Duration(G}Y+Rc),s 9 5 64.2 10:6 1:8'_ 11.0 62.6 310,'� 19,4 � Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 *6 5.5 "6 6.0 6.0 4,5 6.0 Max Green Setting�(Gmax),'s 6.6 �=53 51 "41 &0 .516 28.5 -18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ll),s 3.3 28.5 6.6 21.4 62 52,5 30.2 12.8 Green Ext Time(p,c),s 0 0 10.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 Ih ege�© �a � HCM nth Ctrl Delay 42 5 HCM 6th LOS D HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Queues 2027 AM BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flour(vph) 34 1467 120 1084 308 75 152 153 805 336 ti. vlciafto :0.16° , 1Q1: ,t}.70 A25 0'32 0.311fl0 ; 9 Control Delay 16.6 61.5 4H 27.7 1.2 29.5 6Z8 13,8 78.8 40.7 Clueue Detay.: 0.0 0 0 ;t7 Q t)4 t?0 O Ory _1J.0; 0.0 _ O;U . .00 Total Delay 16.6 61.5 45.0 27.7 1.2 29.5 62.8 13.8 78.8 40.7 Queue tengih sotti{ 13670, 48 0 37v n 98 Queue Length 95th(ft) 31 #812 #162 459 25 68 187 83 #476 325 Infernal lank Q�st{ft}: 25 .. .... 1199,, 85 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 OaseCapacify{ ?e� :212'' 1453 171 "1893 ' C210 2283" 497; 807 ° 593 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spilltiaclr Cap'Retluctn t}`. ' 0, Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redut i=�r/c Rahn � 0=16. .1:01 0 70 t).64. 0 25 a 0 32 : 54 Ualume exceeds ca aci p r ty,IBM ME Ell queue is hebretcca�ly in ni e;,, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, th percentile uolume exceeds capacity,queue may fie;tonger. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles: Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2027 AM BUILD 9: South Drive & Route 125 12/08/2020 Int Delay,slveh 0.8 Larne Conflguratlons �' '� Future Vol,vehlh 0 54 0 459 996 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Free ,Free Free Free Storage Length 0 - - - - - lleh in Meiian Storage,# '0 -_ 0 Grade,% 0 0 1 PeakHaur;Fadbr 92- Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt,Flow ,0 59 " 0 499 ;� Conflicting Flow All 1586 1087 1090 0 - 0 Stage 2 499 Cribpal,Hdwy= Critical Hdwy Sig 1 5.42 - - - - Cndcal Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pat Cap=,Maneuver 1't9:'- Stage 1 323 - - stays 2 '610 Platoon blocked,°la - - Mov�Cep=l Maeuver 11s263: 640 ;- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 119 - - - - Stage 1 323 - Stage 2 610 - - - - - HCM Control Delay,�s 22: 0 °' ��` HCM LOS C 31 Capadty(r6 m) �64b 263 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.223 HCM Cortial Delay(sj 22;6 �- HCM Lane LOS A C HCM95tfi 96ti1e Q(reh) 00.8 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2027 AM BUILD 11: Route 125 & North Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s1veh 1.2 Lane Configurations TrafficVgf,vettfi';"= `20 ,0 6099 Future Vol,veh/h 20 0 60 399" 1002 39 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RTGhani�ellzea ' - None, =�NoneNone Storage Length 0 - - - - - 9 _ Vefi in;Me�lan Srage;# 9 4 Grade,% 0 - - 0 -1 Peak HaurFactor': "�92:; _92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 :65 434 °1 089 42 Conflicting Flaw All 1674 1110 1131 0 0. Stage 2 564 - - - Cr�ficahHdavy 6.22 Critical Htlwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Htlwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - FotCap-fit Maneuver 15 255 �6s < Stage 1 315 Stage ; 569 ;- .: Platoon Mocked,% Mop Gap=1`M- ver 90 255 618 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver g0 ti Stage 1 271 Stage 2 569 - - HCM Cantrell®®lay,s 1;5 0 u HCM LOS F Gapsaty;veni = 618 90 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.106 0.242 HCM Cantrell Delay HCM Lane LOS B A F tiCM95th�� a(�ueh) o.a 0.9, Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 2027 AM BUILD 15: Route 114. & West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.6 Lane Configurations Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1038 42 0 45 Conflichag°Pis, /hr ,.:0 :Q 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channalizetl � Nt�ne None None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Vehan Med!M'Storage,#:. �0_ 0 4 Grade,% - 4 -2 - 0 - Peak Hour factor 92 '92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flovr�`` U 0 1128; �46 049 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - 587 Stage 1 Stage 2 - - - - - Ct>tical,Hc�vji . - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - Cn6cahH�wy'Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy - - - 3.32 PotGap-1r( anauver° °0`: :0 453 , Stage 1 0 - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - A�o�Cap=a1 Maneuver - 453 M o v C a p-i Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - Stage 2 - - - - - HAM C+,'t,ib t tay;s 0, HCM LOS B Capaatyuehy;.� 453 HCM Lane VIC Ratio - 0.108 HCMCon#rolwDelay{s) - 13.9 HCM Lane LOS -' - - B H-Cm J5tti file (ueh) -- 0.4 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 PM EXISTING 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2,020 EB E R B Bl_ 6' 6L NBRMWSBA Lane Configurations 0 Vi tT+ Vi T Traffic Volume(Yeh1h) 225 6 46 7.1. 329' 227 ; 83 247 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 225 684 46 223 Ilk60 71 329 227 83 2447 146 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 100 1 00 1.00 1,00 _ Parking B,us,Adj � 1.00 100; 7 0{} 1:,Oo , 1;00 J. 1 r0o Work Zone On Approach No No No No 4 O Sat Flow,vehlh/ln . 1832 1817 ' .1$17 1964 1964; i96 1;817 1876 187s 1973 1988 19ss . . Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 239 728 49 248 1247 67 76 350 241 109 325 192 Peak Hour Factar 0.94 = 094 0.94 0 94, 0.90 0 9a 0:94. 4?:94 ;94 0.7fi 0;76 0 76 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 p p 3 2 2 Cap,vehih .. `; . 372 1423: `96 316 � 1372;r: ,. 74, 130. 6`2.�.. 249 68 =410 ;242 Arrive On Green 0,16 0.43 0,42 0.23 0.76 0,73 6.34 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.35 0:34 Sat Flow ettth: - 1745�.a..3283-> ..�22171 871_ 11 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 239 383 394 248 645 669 76 0 591 109 0 517 Grp Sat F(oyt(s),ueh7hlln 174,5 1726 1778 1870 1865 1929 859 0 1748 871 ' 0 1863 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.7 19A 19.4 12.3 32.1 32.4 10.6 0.0 39.8 1.2 0.0 30.0 Cycle Q Clear(9=c},s- 8'7 19.4 19 4 _ 12 3 32,1 32,4 40.6 : O,Q 39.8" 41:4 0.0 ':30 0 Prop In Lane 1:00 0.12 1,00 0.10 1.00 0.41 1,00 0.37 Lane Grp Gap{cj„uehth" :. 372 748 770 316 711 . . 735 139; 0 612 . fi8 0 652 WC Ratio(X 0.64 0.51 0,51 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.55 0,00 0.97 1.59 0.00 0.79 Avail Gap(c a);veh/h 372 748 770 . 316. 871 9(}0 139, D: 612 68. 0. 652 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter{I}` lob 1<40, 100 100 10t?<: 1.n0 1.00 Q:00 1.00 1„QO 0:00 100 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 43.6 24.8 24.9 27,9 12.7 12.9 54.3 0.0 38.6 59.9 0.0 35.3 Incr Delay(d2}„s/veh 3 7 4 121 17 6 : 17:3 k : 6" , 325 6 0 0 fi 7 11 initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0;0 0.0 °/60ee q ckOfQ{560%),veh%ln 6-.'9 84 :8.6 56 8.5 8 9 2.5 0.0 21,6 8: b 0 .44.7 Unsig.Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Detay(d)s/veh 474 27.2 27.3 40<1 30.2,' �30.2 58:8 0:6 , 66.5 385:6 00 419 ,LnGrp LOS D C C D C C P A E' F A D Approach Uol,irehlh 1,016 1562 667 626 V Approach Delay,s/veh 32,0 31.8 65.6 101.8 ApproschLa& . ;. C .0 `E F Phs furaton�(G+y+Rc),.s 24348,7 �47A18© 55:0 47a Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5 6.0 4.0 5 Q 6.0 Max Gree?;Settin41.0 14 p 60.0 41 r1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 10.7 34.4 42,6 14.3 21.4 43.0 Geeen Ezf 'me(p_c}, . 0.0 5.4 0:0� ate NAM 6tt%Ctrl Delay `� 49 0 :� _._ HCM 6th LOS ; .. D HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2020 PM EXISTING 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Croup Flow(vph) 239 777 248 1314 76 591 109 517 etc Ratio 1:02 0.5a. :,0.84 0 82' 0:74��� 0.93 1.76 0.83 ' Control Delay 111.0 26.0 53.0 10.9 75.9 58.2 426.5 46.4 Queue Detay 0.g' �4.0 � : 0.0, 0.0 � �0.0 -0.0 0:0 Total Delay 111.0 26.0 53.0 10.9 75.9 58.2 426.5 46.4 queueLength:50th(tt) w139 '225 '12.1 l8 51 419 �125 .347 Queue Length 95th(ft) #334 283 m132 m118 #142 #647 #198 379 Internal'Link`Dist(fltj 1221 =273 637' 615 Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Base GaAacity`(vpt) "235 1 10 298 � 1675 103 636 62 '626 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpiiibackCapReductn 0 0 . 0; 00 '0 0- Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ReducedutcRatio 1.02 0,51 =U:83 t);78 �014 0 3 1.76 0.83 ; '`Volume exoeaetis capacity,queue is theore6cally;nfinite. . Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percefibntile volumeexceo s capacity,queuemay be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered 6y upstream signal. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 PM EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 Lane Configurations ' r TrafBcVolume(vph), ": 36 924 86167, 1253 716 191254 87 3$6 190 19 Future Volume(vph) 36 924 86 167 1253 716 191 254 87 386 195 19 Ideal Floe`(vphpl)' is0o 19001- 1900 1900 ,1900 190,0 1900 1900 1900; 1900 1900 ,�:1900 Lane Width(ft) 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 2%' Storage Length(ft) 100 0 300 300 160 75 300 75 Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25, Lane kltiL Factor :4;00 0'95, 0.95 " 1:40 0.95 1:00 1.00 ": 1:00 1.00 0.95 " `0:95.�.� � .00 Frt 0,987 0,850 0,850 0.850 FIf Protected 0,050 �0.950 0.950 0.950 , 0s83 Satd. Flaw(prot)' 1676 3423 0 1736 3592 1607 1752 1844 1777 1690 1748 1803 F1tPermitted '0.102 0104 0.950 0,950, 0:983 Satd. Flow(perm) 180 3423 0 190 3592 1607 1752 1844 1777 1690 1748 1803 Right Turn.on lied Yes Yes ` Yes; :Ygs Satd, Flow(RTOR) 9 661 182 182 Link Speed(mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 305 1279 705 355 Travel me(s) 6s 29.1 Peak Hour Factor 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.92 0,92 U2 Ao.Flow:(vph); 38 983 91 190- 1424 814" 261 267 92; 420 212 " 21 Shared Lane Traffic(%) 26% Lane Grd*Flow(uph), 38 1074 0 190 1`424 814 201 267,. 02 311 321 121 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Lett Right ;Left Left Right Left Left Right; Left left Right Median Width(ft) 11 11 12 12 Link{)ffset(it). ' 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.07 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.98' 1.01 1.01 0.86 0.99 0.99 0.84 Turning Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9? 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 , 2 1 1 2 1 Detector Template' Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 26 6 20 6 20 26 6 20 20 6, 1 .26 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1Ctiannel Detector 1 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue(s) 0.0 a.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0:0 0:0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay(s) ao 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Posifon(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 _ 6 Detector 2 Type C!�Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector Channel Detector-2 Extend(s) 0:0 OA 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 PM EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 EBT E13 Bl_ t BR r Protectei� 'hases� 1 . ,., ...6 5 2 4 __ ,, 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 4 3 Detector Phase rv1 6 5 2 2 4 .4 4 3 3 3 Switch Phase Minimurnlnitial,(s) '5.0 5;0 S:D 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0: �5.D; 5.0 5.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 26.0 10.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 24,0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Splits) 12,0 %t O 12,0� 60.0 50.0 28.6 28:0 "28.0 30.0 30:0 30.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 41.7% 10.0% 41.7% 41.7% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Maximum Green,(s) 8" '44.0 7.0 44.0 44.0 22.0 22:Dr 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Yellow Time(s) 4:0 4.0 4.D 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Ail-R66Time(s) 2 0 2.0 1.0 2.4 lb 2.0 2b � -2.0 2.6 2 0- 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) -2.0 -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 .2.0 -2.0 -2A -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time s) �4.0 4:0 4,0 4.0 4.0 �4.(3 4 0 ' 4.D 6.0 0.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 46.7 44.9 52.6 52.6 52.6 22.2 22.2 22.2 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g1C RaIt 6.39 0'.37 ` 0.44 0.44 0 44 018 0:16 0.;18' A. ° 0.20 0,20 We Ratio 0,23 0.83 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.62 0.78 0.19 0.92 0.92 0.04 Control Delay` 372 �40;6 61,3 :A2:2 11:253.6 63.0 0,9 80>3 79,6 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total, 37.2 40.6 01.3 42.2 11.2 53.6 63:0 0.9' 80.6 79.5 0.2 LOS D D E D B D E A F E A Approach.Delay 40,5 33.3 49.5 773 Approach LOS D C D E _ w ma Area Type: Other Cycle Length;120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset:60;(5001.),Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL„Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100' Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vtc Ratio:0,92 Intersection Signal Delay:42.9 Intersection Li D Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 2:Route 125&Route 114 02 II1 o3 �� 4 x Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2020 PM EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12109/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 38 1074 190 1424 814 201 267 92 311 321 21 v/c`Ratio- 023 0.83 D.$ 0.90 0:7B 0.62 0.7 a+o 0,92 0.92 0 04 Control Delay 37.2 40.6 61.3 42.2 11.2 53.6 63.0 0.9 80.3 79.5 0.2 QueueQelay � 0.0 O:II 0.0 � 0:0 0:0 0,0 0.0 �0:0, 0;0= 0.0, }.0 Total Delay 37.2 40.6 61.3 42.2 11.2 53.6 63.0 0.9 803 79.5 0.2 Queueaength 5t7tPi{ff)- ,: ``18 ` 385 -194624 91 142195- .0 '250 :.258 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 42 475 #256 #732 254 223 #297 0 #430 #440 0 Inkeriaa4nkDisf t ? � u: `225 ,1199 � 625 275 . Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 75 Base Capacltjr(vptt) 169 1317 223 '1574 1075 350 3613 501 344 355 511 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback,CapReducin D 0� 0 � 0� 0 0 0 0 0 �0 � 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced w- Rana: 0:22 U.82 0.85 0:90� d.76 0,57 0.73 418 p:90 0,90 0a34 Volume exceeds tpac queue is tfieoreticaliy infinite.` Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 9%percentile volume exceeds capacit}i,queue may he:longer, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 PM EXISTING 9: South Drive_& Route 125 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0,2 Lane Configurations Y Tra#fic Vol,aehm` 2 5 10 994 595 5 Future Vol,veh/h 2 5 10 994 595 5 Conflicting;Peds,#Ihr, '0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT!Channeli'id, - -None None; = Nane Storage Length 0 - - - - ViOn m6d'ian Storage;# i0 0 :0 Grade,% 0 - 0 -1 Peak Hour Factor ; 92 9292' 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt,Flow`" ` 1` 2 5 11 1080`' 647 I5 Conflicting Flow All 1752 650 652 0 - 0 Stage,1 650 Stage 2 1102 - - - CnhcalHdry Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - ori"c Rdoy°Stg,2 5:42 Follow-up Hdwy_ 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Potap-1 Maneuver94 469 935. Stage 1 520 - - - - Stage238 Platoon blocked,% - - Mov,Cap-1 Man®uver 91 469 V5 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 91 - - - - Stage 1 545 Stage 2 318 ffilla .._ HCM,ConratDelay,s 22.4 0.1 0 '. HCM LOS C Capadty{veh/hj `935 = 214 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.012 - 0.036 H'M Confrol,Delay sj 8.9 0 22:4 HCM Lane LOS A A C - HCM 95thi0otile 0(veh} 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 PM EXISTING 11: Route_125 & North Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 02 Lane Configurations 4 TraffioVol,uehlh 2 .6 9859 �, 1R, ; : Future Vol,vehth 3 2 6 988 598 14 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free R�Ctrarinehzed '::'.None .w Noises Storage Length 0' Veh m.Median Grade,°Jo 6. 0 _1 k Houractor ' 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 �Cvmt Flow � . Conflicting Flow All 1746 658 665 0 -' 0 Sty 1 w_ 658 i Stage 2 1088 - x Cnhahkiauy. �Al 6A2; 6.21 4.12 � Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hriwp Stg Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 w Pot Cap=1 Maneuver 95 464 ' 924' Stage 1 515 - - - Stgew323` Platoon blocked,°Jo v _ Mov Ail Ma �03 ,4& 924 . Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 93 Stage 1 '505 Stage 2 323 _ W HCM Cootrol Delay,s ;,32� , 0;9 : © ' HCM LOS Q HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.04 w HC I�Control oelay fsj HCM Lane LOS _ A A D HCM s�th��tiie ca�vei,j o - o:'- Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 PM EXISTING 13: Route 114 & East Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.1 _ Lane Configurations tt tt TrafficVol,vehlh 0 6 1465 4 0 �5 Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1465 4 0 5 ConflietingPeds,#!hr 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RTa�hannelizedNorie None None ; Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Stange,°# 0 0 Grade,% - 4 -2 0 Peak-466r-Factor 92 92 92 92 ,; s2 < 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 t592'" 4 0 � Conflicting Flow All 0 - 0 - 798 �3taige 1 - Stage 2 - Crihcat ifidwy: - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - CriticalHduly.sEg2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1`rNtan®over 0° - 0 =329 "' �� Stage 1 0 - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap=1-Maneuver = ,""325 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 - - - - HAM Cont>oi Delay,s 0 0' 16.1 HCM LOS C Capaaty"{vehthj 329 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.017 HCM Control Delay(s) - '` 16.1 HCM Lane LOS - C HCM 95th%tille Q(veh) Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2020 PM EXISTING 15: Route 114_&West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.1 _ Lane Configurations 17717-71 Tr 1469 Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1469 1 0 10 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None Nana 'None Storage Length - - M 0 r VeKtn Miert_Storage, Grade.% - 4 -2 0 Peak Hoerr Factor 92 9? 92 =0 -,§i 92 _ Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 AIR Conflicting Flow All _ 0 0 799 :.:Stage 1 Stage 2 Gnhcal Fldw-y 5.94 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 C'6r�I Hii�ry Stg Follow-up Hdwy - - - 3,32 Pot Gap=�l Maneuver �0 - `0 '328 Stage 1 0 _ _ SCage2: -0 0 Platoon blocked,D/° - Iov Gp=1 Maneuver ' 328 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - �Stage 1 Stage 2 Miln HCM Confiroi Delay;s 0 �0, 16: - — HCM LOS C _ 1111110i 10 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.033 RSM ton,"� l- S) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th%tile Q(Veh) 0.1 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 PM NO-BUILD 1-. Route 1.33 & Route 114 12/08/2020 ve ent BBB H -t3F B °r VIIB NB T R BL BT B Lane Configurations '� 0 t Traffic Volume(Veh/h) 236 "° 719 49 234 1`180 74 74 -346 38. 87 259, 154 Future Volume(veh/h) 236 719 49 234 1180 74 74 346 238 87 259 154 IrjEiaLQ�(Glb),ueh :`0. 8 t3:. 0 ° .,;�0 �r0 �0 0 ;0, 0, 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adl .: `100 1;00 1.00; 140 1,00 =100 100 1:�ij1.00. 1:00 1.00 .00, Work Zone On Approach No No No No A,d1 Sat Fli w,yeh>t/tn ;1847 1:817 .1817 1'979 :191.9 19fi9 197 1788 ;1617 9973', 003 1883 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 243 741 51 244 1229 77 80 376 259 95 282 167 Peak Hour Facfor' 097 0,97 0;9T 0 96 `(}96 0 96. :0.92 0;92 0:92 0;32 0.92 0:92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 4 4 2 6 4 3 1 9 Gep,vehlt% . 343 1519 165� ;505 1 fi08 L01, 250 ' 31;7 �375 223` 367 470 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.46 0.44 0.11 0.46 0,44 0,07 0.18 0,16 0.08 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow vehlfi "1759 327--,8 :<.226° 1884 3484_:;.298 r1759 1788 __1540 1879`2Q03 1596 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 243 390 402 244 642 664 80 376 259 95 282 167 Grp Sat F1ow(s),rretjlhfln1759 1726 :1777 884 1823 1$79 "1759 788 1540 187 2003 1596 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 14.6 14.6 5,9 27.3 27A 3.3 16.5 14.2 37 12.4 77 Cycle Q:Clear{9_c);s 6 4 14.6 14.6 5 9 27:3 27:4 3.3 -16:5 14.1 3.7 '12:4 7:7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0,12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp-Cap(c),vehlh -343 800 824" 505`: 841 867° 250 317 375= 223 367 470 V/C Ratio( 0.71 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.76 0,77 0,32 1.19 0.69 0.43 0.77 0.36 Airail_Cap{c a);"veh/ti 345 800 824 573 841 867, 303 317 375 269 367, 470 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.6-0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream fiiter(I) , 1 00 4:00 1 00' .1,00 1:00 100 100 1'.00'- .1.00, 100 .1�,60; 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 17.3 17.4 11.5 20.8 21,0 28.3 38.3 32.0 28.6 36.1 25.8 Incr Delay;( 2),s/veh 6:5 ' 2.1 21 ,0,7 �6:5 _ A , �;0.7 11.0:8� �_3 1;3, �9.5 � fl.5� 111 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/pile BackOfS (50°Io);velillrf2.9 6:0 6.2 2:4 f 2.4 12:9 1.4 16.8 5'.7 1.7 6.9 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGfpbelay(d),slveh 24.0 1§A 19.5 12.3 '27.3 274 29.0 149.1' 373 29.9 45.6 26.3 LnGrp SOS C B B B C C C F D C D C Approa0hi V 1`vehlh 1(l35 155Q 715 544 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.5 25.0 95.1 36.9 Approach LOS C C F D Phs Duration"(G+Y Rc')l 9 ` 47.4 9:7' 21.0 14;7 47.6 92 21.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.5 6.5 4.5 6,5 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 MaxGreen.Settinp(Gmaxg,,5 38:5 7.5, 14:5, 116 - 35:5 -75 14.5 Max Q ClearTime(g_c+l10,,t 29A 5.7 18.5 T9 16.6 5,3 14.4 Green.Ezt,Tine(P-c);s 4.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.9 0:(? Q:0 HCM 6tfi°Cfrl Delay 38. � HCM 6th LOS D Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2027 PM NO-BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 r Lane Group Flow(vph) 243 792 244 1306 80 376 259 95 282 167 . 0.89 �,58 _ 0 0 59 t?:90 0,28 07 ; 0 40 0,3 ; 0 74 0:27 Control Delay 55.5 23.1 15.0 X0 25.0 105.8 10.9 27.1 49.9 8,6 uauelay o.a: :o.o o:o; o o o: �o � �.a ;� � o:0a Total Delay K5 23..1 15,0 X0 25.0 105.8 10.9 27.1 49.9 8.6 Queue length 50th{ft} 91E3562 33 277 4t}.! 40 �"= 63 18 Queue Length 95th(ft) #232 245 100 #503 67 #451 104 77 4303 64 iitemal�LinkDist�6 .>° � _. 1221=. `273 � 637 Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Base Capacr(�rpti� °~ ' 273 1372' 435 1465 285. 353 ` 662 253 380 611 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pilibatt�CapReuctri; �0 0` 0 0 0 (1: ` D: :Q; t) 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduceo vlc Ratio. 0.89 0:5$ t).56; 0:89 0:28 1;07 0:39 =038 a.74 0.27 Volurrme exceeds capacity;queue is theoretirlly`infinite: Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, 95tti=percentile uolume exceeds capacity,queue may betonger. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 PM NO-BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Configurations 'F tt '� t r M T Traffic Volume(vehlii) 38 971 90 ` 1.76��1318 -0` 20.1 267 '91 406 205` 20 Future Volume(veh/h) 38 971 90 176 1318 753 201 267 91 406 205 20 9. A` :�0 0' 0 . 0 ' 0 �0 :. 0 : Ped Bike Ad](A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj r ;1.00 1.00 �1.00 1°:Q0_ i:.00 `1:00 100 .:104. )00 1'.0o i00� 1:00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,vehlh%In" 1776 1776 17701 1988; 1988 ; 1988 A 7: ti847 1921 1909 19Q9 1909 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 40 1033 96 191 1433 818 212 281 96 441 223 22 Peak Noui Factor> 0;94 °O;J4 ;0.94 0:92 :0.92 0.92 �0;95 "0:95 `6,9�5. 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,,yehiti 1276 119 233 1572962377 `;363v� 464 548 391 .39 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.41 0.39 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.19 0.19 016 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow yehlh 692: 3121 290 1893 `3777 - 1685 1759 m1847=1.628 3528 171>0_ 169 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 40 558 571 191 1433 818 212 281 96 441 0 245 Grp Sat Fi©w(s)vehthlln1692 1687: 1724 1`893 1889 "�1,685 1759 1847 162$ 1764 0 1879 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 28.1 28.1 6.7 34.3 19.2 8.3 13.9 4.3 11.6 0.0 11.1 Cycle Q.Cjear(g_c),s 0;0 28.E 28.1 '- 6.1 34.3 19:2 ��8:3 13:9 �4.3 11:fi `0:0 11:1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 Lane GrpCap(c),veh%h 233 �690705 233 �1572 962 877 353 464 548 0 430 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.91 0.85 0.56 0.80 0,21 0.81 0,00 0.57 Avail Cap e a);'wehlh 203 690 '706::' 233 1518 965 .3717 385 4912 "548 '0 "472 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 am, 1.00 1:00 ,1;09 1:00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 �1.00 1.00 Jfi_ 0 O:UO 1:00 ; Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.5 25.1 25.2 25.0 26.4 5.4 29.3 37.0 26.1 39.2 0.0 32.8 Incr Delay,(tl2),sLe 0.3 9:99820,3 9,5 9.3 1:9 1tJ.3 02 86O,tl" 1;4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile'Back0fQ(50%);veh/Ir0;9 12.6 1'2.9 4.2 16.7 ` 6.9 4.1 7.2 17 5;6 0.0 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp,Delay(d)s/veh 39.0 35.0 35.0 45.3 35.9 14.7 31.2 47.4 263 47.8 0.0 34.2 LnGrp LOS D C C D D B C D C D A C Approach.U6l,veh/h 111169 2442 589 686 Approach Delay,s/veh 35.2 29.5 38.1 42,9 Approach'LOS D C D D Pt s Duration(G+Y+Rc),Q,.8_43:4 f8 ,27.9 18.0 43.3 17.4' 22.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s_6.0 5.5 5.5 *6 6.0 6.0 4.5 6.0 Max�GreenSett'irig'(Gmax .� 38:1 °6.8 *247.0 �,35.6 12,918.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+lga 36.3 10.3 13.1 8.7 30.1 13.6 15.9 Gre6h Ezt Time(p`c),a 0:0 :1,7 0.0 1.0 0.0 333 0.0 0A later�ectt�: . mo _ HCM 6th,Gtr]Delay 318 HCM 6th LOS C *HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier; Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Queues 2027 PM NO-BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 40 1129 191 1433 818 212 281 96 441 245 .. w .,_ a ._ vlc Ratio „ 0:21 ( 87. 0,13 0 8 v 0 76� 0:57, , ,0.79, 0.13i 0;83 0 57 Control Delay 28.2 35.1 44.6 32.6 1U 29.1 53.6 0.4 54.3 36.9 D: `0.0 0 I.O t}" v Total Delay 28.2 35.1 44.6 32,6 11.2 29.1 53.6 0.4 54.3 36.9 fdueue Length 5013t:(ft) 15 _;, a Queue Length 95th(ft) 36 #426 #192 #610 298 144 #280 0 #217 205 Iritema(lank:Dlst : �27 , Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 Base CaPaci#y(wPh) 197 13p4 240 1fi27 ; 1077 371 371 723 530 452 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Q. Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced.vlcRatio. = 0.21� 087M080 w8 _<, 076_ 0.57 �; 0:76: 0.13. r3.83 0.54 �- ,95th�percen6l�volume ext�eds capacity,queue;may be Conget'� _ Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 PM NO-BUILD 9: South Drive & Route 125 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.2 Lane Contigurations ? Tp�Ipl �10 1046 Future Val,yeh/tt 2 5 10 1046 626 5 Sigh control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free I'Chid None gone " None Storage Length 0 - V to Merartrge,#: 0::: - -Q Q Grade,% 0 - - 0 -1 . ,. .. '-92 92_ 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,°/a 2 2 2 2 2 2 -680 Conflicting Flow All 1842 683 685 0 - 0 Stagi31 -683 � Stage 2 1159 - - - - - CCihc81 Htiwwy : ; 8:42 6;'22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 CnhcahHduiQ%Stg-2. 5;42 k Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - PotCap-1-Maneuver83 Stage 1 502 Stage2 :299 ` Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Aaiineuver 8Q 449 9Q8 : Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 80 - - - Stage 2 299 HCM Cori�r®D Delay,s 24 3 `` Q.1 HCM LOS C Capaaty(y®hlh� b 194 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - 0.039w. HCM Control Delay(s) =�9 �� Q HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 966%,tile Q(veh) Q Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 PM NO-BUILD 11: Route_125 & North Drive 12�oa/2o2o int Delay,s/veh 0.2 SM Wm Lane Configura#ions �' '� Traffic V6,v®hfi 3 2= 6 04 629; 14 : Future Vol,veh/h 3 2 6 1042 629 14 confl�c6ng Peels, Ihr 0 0 D `0 ..: .0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Ghannelized Storage Length 0 - Ueh in N(edian:Sto "-0" ' Grade, % 0 _ = 0 -1 - Peak iiour`Fctor 92 92 92; 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Munif riow " ': ' ` :2 � �7`�'1133�- �'684`' 1��' Conflicting Flow All 1839 692 699 0 - 0 _ Stake 1 892 Stage 2 1147 Cnitioaf dwy ` 6:42. 6.22: 4.12 . Critical Hdwy Stg'1 5.42 Critical Fidwy;Stq 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - �.v Pot Cao=l. Maneuver ;83 : 89 Stage 1 497 - w Platoon blocked,% Mov Gap=9 anew er 81 44 m Mov Cap'-2 Maneuver - Stage-1 487 Stage 2 303 - - - 12' . _ MM I - w . . .. . .r .. - HCM Control[�'d s 3 .A '0 1 0 � HCM LOS E Capalfyi'(vefimj .. w . __ 896 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,007 - 0.045 HCM Gontrot Delay{s) 9 '0 36.4 ; HCM Lane LOS A A E - MCM 95th%tale Q(vehj 0 0 4 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 PM NO-BUILD 13: Route 114 12/08/2020 lnt Delay,s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations tt tt Traffic Vole efirh ' 0 �154 � 4 Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1541 4 0 5 ConflictingPeds,#Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channeliza� None one = None Storage Length Veh in. oftn Storage; Grade,% - 4 -2 0 - PeakHour factor2 92 = 92; -3292 92 Heavy Vehicles,%° 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mtrnf Flom �0 -0 1.675 4 d �5 Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 840 Stage 2 - - - Cnt�cal Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - Ctihcal Follow-up Hdwy - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap=1 Maneuver 0 - 0 "309 Stage 1 0 - -, - 0 - Stage 2 0 Platoon blocked, Moy,Cap-1 Maneuver - '300 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 2 - - - - - - HCM Controfl)elay,s HCM LOS C HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0,018 HCM Control Delay(s} - 16.9 HCM Lane LOS - C HCW 95th%tile'Q(yeh) 0.1 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 PM NO-BUILD 15: Route 114 & West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations tt t - _ Trp#firi Val,,ve[tilh; {iE 0 1�45 # Q_u 1 tl. Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1545 1 0 10 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Ghannelizel ; - � None = :None:. - None :. Storage Length 0 _. veh r;Mediai�� torage, Grade,% _ 4 -2 Q Peak H,i r�Fai o� 92 ` 92 0 : �92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmfPloav� 0 01679 1 4k' , 11 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - 840 Stage't - Stage 2. _ nt�calH wy '. 6 94 w„ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - Cntica(NtlwySlg . Follow-up Hdwy Poi Cap=1 Maneuver -30 9 Stage 1 0 o Platoon blocked, % ti May.Csp-1 Maneuver 3U9 _ _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - Stage l Stage 2 - HGM Control Ifay;s '0" 17:1 HCM LOS C Cpacityi(vah�lij 3U9. . HCM Lane VIC Ratio - 0.035 HCM Control t3siay(s} 17,1 HCM Lane LOS C HCM 6 6461e.' h Q 1 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 PM BUILD 1: Route 133 &Route 114 12/08/2020 h3T 113� - SST & F R Lane Configurations ' , Tic',affiVolume(vet lh} 236 727 49 239 1179: 74 74 346,: ;242 87 �259 154 Future Volume(vehlh) 236 727 49 239 1179 74 74 346 242 87 259 154 lntial Q:{tab),ueh � 0 :0 .4 �0 0, �O ry 0 Q 0 40 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Parkmg`Bts;Ad �100 1001.00' 1:40 1.001:00 4.00 100 ` --1.00 1A0 1.:00. 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No 9191 01979199 1 18 1 84 87 18 7 .A 883 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 243 749 51 249 1228 77 80 376 263 95 282 167 Reak Hour Factor Os7 0:97'; '-0.973.96 �0.96 0:96 '0.92 ° 0:92: 0:92 2 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 2 2 0 4 4 2 6 4 3 1 9 Cap;uehlh�: 343 �15116 ��103 � �503' 1607 � 101 .250 317 ,,470 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.46 0.44 0.11 0.46 0.44 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.08 0.18 0.18 SatFipw;vehlh 1759 . 3280 223 _.1884 `.:..3484, 218 .; .1759. :;1788 .. 1540 1879 2003 1596 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 243 394 406 249 642 663 80 376 263 95 282 167 5611591726 777 8 1823 189 9 540 879 003 19ipwelt/ii Ga Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 14.8 14.9 6.1 27.2 27.4 3.3 16.5 14.5 3,7 12.4 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c;s 6A � ,14:8. �14.9 ;6�1 � 27,2 � =�27.4 � .33 16.5 14:5, 3,Z �� 12.4 , �7,7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Lane.GrpCap(c),veh/h 343 798 821' 503 841 .867250317 377 223 367470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.76 0.76 0.32 1.19 0.70 0.43 0,77 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a};ueh/h 346 798 s21 568 841 867 303 3fi7 311 269 361 470 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1 AO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1 100 1'00 1:00 1:a0 1,00 1;00 1.00 1.00 1:00, 1 b0 1.00 1,:OQ Uniform Delay(d),slveh 17.5 17.4 17,5 11.6 20.8 21.0 28.3 38.3 32.0 28,6 361 25.8 Incr Delay'{d2),"slveti . 6.5 2:2 2.1 (l.6 f 6.5 6.4� '0:7 110.8 5 5�� 13 �9.5 0;5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %le BackOfQ(50% ,vehlln 2 9 6.1 6.3 2A 12.4 12.9 1.4 16.8 5.8 1.7 6.9 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay,slveh Ln'rp Delay(d),s/veh ' 24.0 19.6 19.7 12.4 27.3 27.3 29.0 149.1 37.5 29.9 45.6 26.3 LnGrp LOS C B B B C C C F D C D C Approach 1fol,veh'/h 10431 1554 719 544 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.6 24.9 94.9 36.9 Approach LOS C C F D Phs Duration{GfY+R6),S, 1 .9' 47.4 9.1 21.0 14.8 `'47.5 912 21.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 MaX`GreQn Sefting'(Gmax) s 8 5 38.5 7.5 14.5 11.5 35.5, 7.5 14.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ll),s 8.4 29.4 5.7 18.5 8.1 16.9 5.3 14.4 Green'"Ext Time(p'c),s 0 0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 '5.0 &0 0.0 W. HCMV6tfi�Ctrl pelay � y 38:5 HCM 6th LOS D Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2027 PM BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route_114_ _ 12/08/2020 DAN Lane Group Flow(vph) 243 800 249 1305 80 376 263 95 282 167 vlcRat>o: � :� 0:890580:68;. 0.9© 028 9 U7� O;II 0.38 0:74 �.27 Control Delay 55.6 23.3 15.5 33.9 25.0 105.8 11.4 27.1 49.9 8.6 QueueDelay. , `0:8' ,0.0 0�0 .Q 0: _.0 Q,� n 4.( ;0 0,0 0.0 r Total Delay 55.6 23.3 15.5 33.9 25.0 105.8 11.4 27.1 49.9 8.6 Queue Length 5tlth{ ). 91 187 63 360 33 277 43 40 163 18 Queue Length 95th(ft) #232 248 102 #503 67_ #451 108 77 #303 64 Intemal;thk Dist{ft) 221 =25 637` 615. Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Base Capacity(r)ph) .273: ` 371 .431-z �1466 285 363 860 ' 253 : 380 =61 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpilIback,Cap Reauetn;, 0 0 0 0 U f� 0q t} 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eaeduccl ytc Rabe, 0;89 058, 0.58 0:89 0.38 0.74 0.27 Al � tolurrie exceeds ca`"aci p ty;ttueue is eoreficallyymftnite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95>h percentile volume;exciWs capacity;queue may,be longer,; Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 PM BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Configurations '� I t r T Traffic Volume(vehlh) 58 963 90 '176 -1329, ` ' 753'� ' 201`°` '267 9� 428 212 20 Future Volume(veh1h) 58 963 90 176 1329 753 201 267 91 428 212 20 IntiaLQ:(Clb},veh ; , 0 �0 0 0. .0° 0 � , 00 0 Q0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Z 1.00 1.00 1.00 s,_. . Parking Bus,Adj- 1.00 1.00 1;fl0 1;fl4 1;00 100 1:00 �.00 1.00. Work Zone On Approach No No No No Ad1 Sat�Flow,rveh/hlin 177fi 1776 1776 1988 988 1988 1847 1847 191 1909 19091909 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 62 1024 96 191 14,45 818 2,12 281 96 465 230 22 Peak F(ou Facto��; :0.94 A'94 ,0:94, 0 92, -,92 0 9- -,a 95 0,95 0.95 0,92 0;92 0,92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh%h 232 1275 119 233: 1673 963_ `; .'372 ;353 464 548 .392 _ 38 � Arrive On Green 0,09 0.41 0,39 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,;=vehlt� �1692 311;9: ,292, 1693.`.�_3777 ;. T1685:: ,1769 1847 : :1628 3528 1716;, 164 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 62 664 566 191 1445 818 212 281 96 465 0 252 Grp SatFlow(s};veh/hlln 1692 16$7 1724 1893 1889 1685 1769 1847 1628 1764 0 1880 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 27.7 27.8 6.7 X7 19.2 8.3 13.9 4.3 12,3 0.0 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s" 0 0 _27.1 27:8 6;7 34.7' . 19:2 813 13.9 4; 12.3 -0.0 11,.5 Prop In Lane 1,00 0.17 1Z 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c);veh/h 232 690 705 233 1573 963 372 353 464 548 .0 430 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.80 0Z 0.82 0.92 0.85 0.57 0.80 0,21 0.$5 0,00 0.59 Avast Cap(c_ h/h 232 690 705 233 1578 965 372 385 492 548 0 472 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 I Upstream Fitted) 1:00 1.00 1.00 1'do oo, 100 100 1.Qfl 1.OU! 1.00 0100 1:00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 25.0 25.1 24.9 26,5 5.4 29.4 37,0 26.1 39.5 0.0 33.0 Incr Delay(d2)',,stueh 0�6 9.6 9.4 20.3 10.1 9.3 2:1 1013 0.2 12.0 0.0 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %le Back(7fQ(50%),veh/In A 12,5 12.8 4.2 ``17A 6,9 �41, 7.2 1,7 6,2 Unsig.Movement Delay,s/veh LI'd" - elay(')'/veh-" 40.2 34,6 X6 45.2 36.6 14.6 '31,5 47,4'! 26,3 515 -Off, 34.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D D B C D C D A C Approach 1lot,veh/h__ 1182 2454 589 717 Approach Delay,s/veh 34,9 29,9 38,2 45,,5 Approach'LOS, C C D D Ti, erg 1 ne PhsDuration y+hsR�c 7 435 1s 7 ` (G+ ' Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 5,5 5.5 k 6 6.0 6.0 4.5 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax) �s 5 0 38;1 6.3 *'24 7;0 36.6 12.9 1&0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ll),s 2,0 36.7 10,3 13.5 87 29,8 14.3 15.9 Green ExtTime(p'_e),s Ofl 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 3,4 0:00.4 HCM6thCtri Delay 34,4 HCM 6th LOS C t ►tes _ �:: *HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier; Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Queues 2027 PM BUILD 2: Route 125 &_Route 11.4 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 62 1120 191 1445 818 212 281 96 465 252 v/c Ratio 0.32 0 86 0 81 0 94 79 058 0 79 013 fl:86 0=58 Control Delay 32.9 35.0 46.8 39.7 13.2 29.2 53.6 0.4 57.3 37.1 Queue belay 0() U 0 V.;0 0. .`: 0 0 _ . .0:0 : OA 00, Total Delay 32.9 35.0 46.8 39.7 13,2 29,2 53.6 0.4 57,3 37.1 Queue Lengi.54thft}. 23 32U 7fi' . :. 51r_.. . 15 88 ' 162 0 145 131 , Qteueue Le Le ngth 95th(ft) 50 #416 #188 #618 #346 144 #280 0 #234 211 ink225 Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 Base Capaatyug 195: 1 39. 1031 `36 Starvation Gap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpillbackCap Reductn 0 ,Q ;�0 - 0,' Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce.vlc Ratio< 0.32' ` t},88 0.81,: 0:94 0.79 0.5$= r �._. .,_ # 5th`perceritit volume.exr�eiis capacity,queue may be�longer; r. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2027 PM BUILD 9: South Drive & Route 125 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.4 EW ME Lane Configurations �` �" � Future Vol,veh/h 0 49 0 1076 611 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Ct►anneli ed Nona one -; None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh t ""than SWage, Grade,% 0 _ 0 -1 - Peak Hour Factor 92 : 92 92`` 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,%_ 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mi Flow,- : :,;A �53 � 9170 tiff �5 Conflicting Flow All 1837 667 669 0 - 0 Staged �667 Stage 2 1170 - - - CrtihcatHdvuy`; Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Ciacal Hdv+ry Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2,218 Pot Ca 1'"Manetiir lt59 Stage 1 510 - - - - Siege 2' 295 Platoon blacked,% - Mav Cap=1�Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 83 - - Stage 1 510 Stage 2 295 - - - - - HCM LOS B Capacitytvehi)' v.; ��9158; w. HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.116 HCM ControlDelay{s) HCM Lane LOS A B r HCM 95th°40 (d(u )' Q =' 0.4 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2027 PM BUILD 11: Route 125 & North Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 1.4 _ Lane Configurations Traffic*l,�veh/h 22 Q 44 :1�32 611 ' 25 Future Vol,veh/h 22 0 44 1032 611 25 Conflicting Pads,#!hr :, 0; 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free w Rt"Chanrelied : None Nave - Nine: . Storage Length 0 Vehiri"Mo ianStt�rage, Grade,% 0 Paak*ur.Factar` 92: 92� 92 ` `92� ;�92��: .92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Flow All 1896 678 691 0 0 S09e;i .678 Stage 2 1218 - w - Ccal Hduuy 6t :22 4.12 Critical Hdwy_Stg 1 5.42 - - Cntx;af Hdwy;Stg 2" 5.42: s Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2,218 Pot Cap-1',Marlouver 7, 452 904.. Stage 1 564 _ - - Stage"2 260 Platoon blocked,% WV Gap-1 MarieuVer 65 452 9Q4 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 65 Stage 1 433 Stage 280 - HAM Contiro!Delays s 69 6_ — HCM LOS F Capeci � ehlh " 904 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.053 - 0.368 kiCM Coritiol Delay(s} 9.2 0, 89:fi HCM Lane LOS A A F - HCM95th°�6tileQ(veh} Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 2027 PM BUILD 15: Route 114 & West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.5 Lane Configurations �� �� Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 1516 36 0 39 ConflicUng�Pads,#�hr U Q 0 � � 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelzed Noneone, S Length - - - - - 0 Veh mtorage Mei9ian Storage; '_ 04 - t? Grade,% - 4 -2 - 0 - Peak Hair Fantor 92: 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 M�tttFlnw 0� ' *1 ��G48 _�39 ' 0 ` 4� , • . Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - 844 Stage 2 - - - - - Crt6calrSidwy.v '6 04 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Crpcal Hdv�y stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 _w Pot Cap=1 Maneuver 0 Stage 1 0 _ 0 Stage 0 - `0 Platoon blocked,°lo - - Niov Cap= Maneuver . � = - - 307 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 Stage Z HCMCan�olDelay,s 'Q�_ � 0' 18.6 ' NCM'LOS C Capacity�yehih} - _ 307. HCM Lane V/C Ratio = - 0.138 HCM Control D®lay"{sj HCM Lane LOS - - = C HW 06th°tile Q{veh} 0.5 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2020 SAT EXISTING 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 f= l. EB Eta W= B N6 l�f T N SBI 3 g Lane Configurations Vi Traffic Volume 1r/ehlh} 217 625 48 132 657 . .34 63_w 20li :124 79 176 191 Future Volume(veh/h) 217 625 48 132 657 34 63 206 124 79 176 191 VQ . _ 0; 000; 0 0; Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parkrng Bus,Adj;,n v 1;00 100 100 1:00, 100 1 f10 1:00 1,IJ0 _1:00 1 N90 1 00 10Q- .` Work Zone On Approach` No No No No Adj Sat Flow;vei�/h/in "1$32 1832 -1832 1,9.64. 1964 ; 1964 '1.876 :1$62 1862 2018 1988 1988 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 231 665 51 140 699 36 69 226 136 90 200 217 Peak Hour Factor 094 ; 0,94 0 94 0.94 0;94 : o:94. 0:91, U.91 a.91 Q.i38 {188 088 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1. 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 Cap,vehlh 677 1650 126 21:0 '$55 44 161 344 207 201 27ki 299 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.50 0.49 0,16 0.47 0.44 0,31 0.32 0.31 0:31 0.32 0.31 SatFlow yeh/tt 7745 3276 =25 ..1874. 36tU . .186 973 1689 ._w655 .1-1.00; -872 946 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 231 353 363 140 361 374 69 0 862 90 0 417 Grp Bak Flow{s};veh/h11n1745 1741 1787 1870: 18G5 w1930 973 0 1744 1100 0 1818 Q Serve{g_s),s 5.3 15.2 15,2 7.7 19.9 20.0 8.2 0,0 21.5 9.3 0.0 24.5 Cycle:Q Clear(g'c},s 5 3 152 15.2 . ...7 7 19:9::20 tl 32;7 0:0 21:5 .301 �0.0 :24.5, , Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.10 1,00 6.38 1 00 0.52 l,aneDrp°Cap( V/Ce,veh/h '677 _„876 „900 210 442 : 457 161 0 551 201 0 575: Ratio(X) 0.34 0.40 6.40 0.67 0.82 0,82 0.43 0.00 0..66 0.45 0,00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a} veh1h 677 i376_ 9„00 231 653 676 259 0 727 312 0 757 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1,00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Ups#raamFilter(I}w :1.OQ _:100 f:00 1;400' 1 4IR ,1 00� 100 r0 00 A,0 1y:00 0,00- Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 26.8 18.6 18.7 38.4 29.4 29.6 51.9 0,0 35.6 49.6 U 36:7 Ircr Delay(d2),s%ueti 0 3 14 1:3 6 2: .15:4 15:0 ; 1;8 0.0 1.3 16 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh `0.0 0:0 U 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °foile BackC?fQ($0%_'eh/Ir-4.7. 6.4 6.f 3.6 8.8 9.1 2.1 0.0 9,,3 2.6 U.O; 1.=2 . . Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp.Delay 27.1 19.0 20.0 44:6 44.7, '44.5 ;'53.7 0.0 36.9 51.2 0.0 '39.1 LnGrp LOS C B C D D D D A D D A D A ptoagti Uol,:veh/h", 947 1 875 431 507, Approach Delay,s/veh 21.7 44.6 39.6 41.2 App,oach: 0S G, . D`� T er - Plis Duration�G+y+Rc, 5,6 31.4 42:9` 136 63.4 42.`9` Change Period(Y+Rc),s'5.0 *5 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 M'axt3reen Sattirig(Gmai :� *4{ 49;0,,� 1.1.;0 45:0 �. .49;0 Max Q Clear Time(g c+ll?,3; 22.0 34.7 91 17.2 32,9 Green Ekt Time(plc),s0.4' 44 2:3 0A 4:9 ° 28 FILM 6th111#.Delay 35 3 HCM 6th LOS D *HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2020 SAT EXISTING 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 231 716 140 735 69 362 90 417 v1c Ratio 0:52 0;39 0.3s 0.39' 0 76 0�1 O fi6, 00 Control Delay 30.0 19.2 24.7 12.3 83.5 42 4 60.4 45.6 Queue Delay �,0 �0.0, :0u0 0:0: 4_0� 00 �,. 00: . �00 Total Delay 30.0 19.2 24.7 12.3 83.5 42.4 60.4 45.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 95 163> 51 111 4 ; 231 62 ' 262 Queue Length 95th(ft) 193 275 m75 77 #111 297 109 326 Infernal LNnk Dist'(ft} 273 37 Turn Bay Length(fit) 300 200 130 140, Base Capaaty(vph) 51,2 1852 37 1888 -138 750 �206 755- Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5<nllback Cap Reductn 0 . -0 0 r0 0 ~0 t} 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0:45 < `®:39 ' :Y 0:37. 0 39 v 0 50 .'.0 48 = 0.44 0:55 #` 95th percentile volume exceetls capacty,queue may be'I®nger ; Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Voiume for95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal; Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 SAT EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 _ l Lane Configurations '� _ `F� ' '� r Traffic Voluiie(Vpti)' 22 720 �` 88 � .1'19': 703 346` 140 ; Future Volume(vph) 22 720 88 119 703 346 140 211 130 341 180 9 Ideal„Flow(uphill) 1900 19�0 "19QQ .. ;9aU 1900 19.00 "'MP 1900; 1900 1900 190Q 1:9g0 Lane Width(ft) 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 16 12 12 16 o o o 0 Storage Length(ft) 100 0 300 300 160 75 300 75 StorageLaites1. =1, Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util:Factor '7 00 0:95 Q 95 1 tj0 . ;0.95 = 1.00 1:00 1.Q0 1.06 0.95. 0.95 1,Q0 Frt 0.984 0.850 0.850 0,850 Flt Protectdd 0.90 '0;950 , 0.950 0.950 0;984: �.: . Satd, Flow(prot) 1693 3450 0 1753 3628 1639 1787 1862 1794 1723 1761 1786 Fltpermifted; 0.34701240:950 '0.950 Satd.Flow(perm) 618 3450 0 229 3628 1639 1787 1862 1794 1723 1761 1786 Right Tum on Red Yes, Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow(RTOR) 13 368 182 182 Link Speed<(mph}; 30 34 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 305 1279 705 355 TravetT me,(�� 6.9` �29.1 16.0 81 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Q94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles(°lo) 1% 1°/a Q% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%' 1% Q% 29Y �3% Adj. Flow(vph) 23 766 94 127 748 368 154 232 143 388 205 10 Shared Lane Traffic(%) 25°Io Lane Group Flow(vph) 23 860 0 127 748 368 154 232 143 291 302 10 Enter 8lopked Intersection No Na o No No No Na ' No Na No No 111,0 Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right ( etlian Wdth(ft) :1,1= 11 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1:07 1♦03 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.98 1.Q1 1.01 0.86 0.99 0.99 0.84 Turning Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 „ 1 2` 1; 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector(ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector l Posi6or(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type - CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex 'CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex: CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1'Extend(s) 0'.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 -0.0 0,0 > 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0-,0 OA Detector 1 Queue(s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 U U 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 Detectorl Delay(s) 000.0 0,t} 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0+ 0,0 0,0 00. 0,o Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94, 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 -6 6 6 Detector Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 00. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 SAT EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route_114 12/09/2020 Tum,Type Qm+pt' NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Perm ,SpliE_ NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3 Perrtiitfed Phases 6 2 2 4 3 Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 Switch,Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 M. rtiinu►n SpIiE(sj 11.6 �?6.0, 10:0, 26.0 26.0 24.0. 24.0 24.0° 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split(s) 12.0 50 0 12.0 50.0 50.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total; plit(°lo) 10.0% 41.7% 10 0% 41,7% 41;7% 23,3% 23.3% 23.3°l 25,0°l0 "25.0%� 25.0% Maximum Green(s) 6.0 44.0 7.0 44.0 44.0 22.0 22.0 22,0 24.0 24.0 24,0 Yclloi�fiirne(s) 4.0 4,0� 4.0 4.0 4.0� 4 4.0 4A, 4:0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 1,0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost<Time Adjust,(s) -2,0 :2.0 -1:0 -2:0 -2:0 40 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 LeadlLag:` . ° L Lag Lead:, Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag' Lead Lead Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle E' S"ion(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 '3;0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Min None C-Min C-Min None None None None None None Act Effct`Green:.(s) 46 8 :4 ''1 52.0 52.0 62.0 211 21.1 21.1 24.6 246 24 6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 vle Ratio 0.07 0:64 6.58 0.48 0.46 0.49 0.71 0.31 .0.82 ` 0.84 0.62 Control Delay 26.4 32.7 36.3 27.8 4.0 49.5 58.5 4.2 65.2 66.2 0.1 Queue Delay 0 0 0.0 4.0 0.0 �0:0 ! 0:0 0.0 0,0 Total Delay 26.4 32.7 36,3 27.8 4.0 49.5 58.5 4.2 65.2 66.2 0.1 LQS C C D C A D� ' E A' E E A Approach Delay 32.6 1 21,6 41.2 64.6 ApiroachlOS C C D :E InIN ILL- Area Type:�_ Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:120 Offset:60(50%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL,Start of Green Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum*Ratio:Q.84 Intersection Signal Delay:35.7 Intersection LOS:D Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.610 ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:Route 125&Route 114 432 01 J 04 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2020 SAT EXISTING 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 23 860 127 748 368 154 232 143 291 302 10 u/c Ratio, 0 07 . ,�0.64 0M 0,48 0.40 0: 9 t:79 �0:31 (I.82 0.84 0 02 Contral'Delay 26.4 32.7 36.3 27.8 049.5 58.5' 4.2 65;2 66.2 0.1 Queue�;[)elay Q.t) 0.0 Oa? 0.0 o : 0:0 0:0 O.Q , 0.0 0;0` 0.0 Total Delay 26.4 32.7 36.3 27,8 4.0 49.5 58.5 4.2 652 66.2 0.1 Que . 31ue 107680 Queue Length 95th(ft) 29 351 #119 295 61 173 253 28 #372 #386 0 lntetn 1,Link D�st�( � 225 , Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 75 Baca Capacity(vph) 322- 141.5 219 ' 641 943 357",-' 372 504 V 375 `523 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilbrlck Cap Riuctn. 6 0 0° '0 .0 00 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0 R�iuix f rrlc E�atio�' 0.07 ,0:61 .0.68 0:46 0.30 Q.43 0.62 0. 8 0.79 0.81 �0.02 20- 95ta percentil®uoiume exceeds capacity queue may be:longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 SAT EXISTING 9:_South Drive & Route 125 12/08/2020 Int Delay,slveh 0.1 _ IS 9 Lane Configurations �' '� 529 - u Future Vol,uehth 1 1 9 569 529 6 Carr : � r. � ;,� 0 . , 0 0 Q Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free 1" ar► e1ad"` _ �. None hioirae None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in tern:dotage,#. 0 ,�:0 0 Grade,PA 0 - 0 -1 - s , s2 a2� 92 szs Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 575 Conflicting Flow All 1217 579 582 0 - 0 Stage 1 578 Stage 2 638 - - - Cr heat Nriu+ry ; A44 :6:22 4r12;, Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2. 342 Fallow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2,218 - - Pot Cate ManeuYar ��2Q0 5!5 992 Stage 1 560 - - - - - Stage 2 :. 526 Platoon blocked,% Mou Cap-1 Maneuver 197' S15 992 -. Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 197 - - - - - Stage 1 " ,92 , - Stage 2 526 - - - HCM LOS C Capaaty(vehth) �` 992 ' _ 285`; HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.01 - 0.008 HCM Control[)slay( } 81 0 I'T HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 056i°Mile Q(veh) U Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 SAT EXISTING 11: Route 125 & North_Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations "� �" "� Traffic Vul,Vehfi Future Vol,vehlh 1 © 2 568 535 9 Conflicting Peels,#/hr _. . . . Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free R7 Channelized Nine None Storage Length 0 Veh irMetlianto�age;`#, U Grade,% 0 _ 0 _1 - Reap Fiou Factory �92 92 92 92 y `92 9 w. Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 fulvmt t`low0 617. 582 Conflicting Flow All 1208 587 592 0 - 0 ":587 Stage 1 m ' Stage 2 621 Cntical Hdwy 6.42 Ei22r 412 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 - - C cairn,W",Stq 2 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Stage 1 556 x _ Stage 2 538" '�' - Platoon blocked,% Mou Cap=1 Maneuver 201 51 ; 984 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 201 - Stage 1 554 Stage 2 536 HtvM.Control Delay,s �23. ` , HCM LOS C Capacity{vehlh HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - U05 - -: �I�MConfrof Ltelay{s�� HCM Lane LOS A A C - HCM 95th Milli,Q��ehj Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 SAT EXISTING 13: Route 114 & East Drive _ 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations ' tt Tragic Volet/h 0 0 853 6 Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 853 6 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop R Channelized= None Non"e None r, v Storage Length - - - - - 0 lleh in Median�Storage�# .;.- 0 0 :4 Grade,% - 4 -2 p _ Peak Hourfactor s2 92 `.92: _92 < 42 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFisiw� 0.. 0= 927� 7 0, . Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - 467 Stage 1 Stage 2 - Crcaljidw�r .. n694 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Follow-up Hdwy - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-'I'Maeuver0 �- �0: 542 Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage b Platoon blocked, Mov Cap=l;Maneuver r, - = 542.- _r Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ' Stage 2 F1CM Control ay, HCM LOS B Capacity jvehlh)`,' �. 542 HCM Lane VIC Ratio = - 0.002 HCMContro!Delays) HCM Lane LOS - - - B HCM 95th°tile Q{veh) 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2020 SAT EXISTING 15: Route 114 & West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 Lane Configurations tt tf Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 850 9 0 _ 1 Canflic#ingPeds", lhr ^0 Sign Control Free free Free Free Stop Stop . RT Channalized = `None one =:' None Storage Length - - 0 fish in;MedlartStarage,# ;` 0 �0 . _ Grade,% 4 -2 0 Peak:Hour Factor 92 92 - Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Fto~rai ; 0 0924 i 0 w. ONE 1111 Conflicting Plow All 0 - 0 467 Stage Stage 2 Cngcal `694: Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Ctthca!_Htlrtit StgZ Follow-up Hdwy - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap-1'Maneuver 0 ' Stage 1 0 0 staer ::��o ��' : - =o u Platoon blocked,°la_ - Mov Gap=1 Man®u r M2 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver _ �Stagel Stage 2 HCM LOS B Elp Ca as — - HCM Lane WC'Ratio - 0.002 HCM'con of Ctia[ay(6 HCM Lane LOS - B HCM 95th°stile Q(veh} 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/09/2020 r WBL _, 1{�BR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(veh/h) 228 657 51 1'39 691 36 67 216 130 83 185 201 Future Volume(veh/h) 228 657 51 139 691 36 67 216 130 83 185 201 InitialQ(Q6);�veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 �0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ParkingBus,�Atlj 1.Of :00 1.170 100 .001.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00„ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No A4 Safflow;veh/h/In 1832 1832 1847 1964 19614 1979 1876 1862 'It62 2018 "1988 1973 Ad j Flow Rate, veh/h 248 714 55 151 751 39 73 235 141 90 201 218 Peak Houc Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 ,0;9Z 0:92 0.92 0.92 0.92� 0.92, 0:92� 0.92 0,92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 Cap;veh � 518 1595 123 524 1671 87 264 �217 243 262 ',241 397 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.49 0.46 0.09 0.46 0.44 0.08 012 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.12 SafFlow�vehfh 1745 3275 252 -1870 - 3608 167, J`787 1862 1578, 1922 - 1988 .1872 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 248 379 390 151 388 402 73 235 141 90 201 218 i rp Flow(s),vj*thljn 1745 ' 174; 1787 1870 '1865 '1930, 1787 1862 1578 `1,922 1988 1672 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.1 10.4 10.5 2,8 10.3 10.3 2.5 8.5 6.1 2.9 7.2 8.3 Cycle Q 066r(g_c) s 51 10A 10.5' 2.8 10.3 10,3 2.5 8.5 6.1 2.9 7.2 83 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1,00 0.10 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp,Cap(c),vehlh 5181 041 870 .624 864 894 264- 217 243 '262. 241 397 WC Ratio(X) OA8 0.45 0.45 0.29 0.45 0,45 0.28 1.08 0.58 0,34 0.84 0.55 AvailCap(e_�a),veh/h 518 847 '810 568 864 °894 353 217 243 349 24 397 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream;Filter(I) 1:00 .1;fl01 100 1':00 1.00 100 1:00 1.00 1a,00 1,00; 1.00 1:Ot1 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 8.7 123 12.4 8.5 13.3 13A 24.9 32.3 28.7 24.9 31.4 24A Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.7 1.7 1.7 0,3 1;7 "1.6 0:6 '85.3 '3.4' 0.8 21,8 1,6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 1 0.0 °Toile 8ackOf0(50%);veh/In 1;7 4.0 4.2 1;0 4.3 4.5 1.1 8.8 24 1.3 418 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.4 14,0 14.1 &8 15.0 15.0 25.5 117.6 32.1 25.7 512 26`.0 LnGr2 LOS A B B A B _ B C F_ C C D C Approach-' �teh/h 1017 941 , �449 509 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.9 14.0 75.8 36.7 Approach LOS B B E D 9 he Pais Duration((jfY+Rc),s 13,0 38.3 8.7 13.0 11.3 40. 8.4 133 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 6,5 Max Green Settingg(Gmax) s 6.5 28.5 T5 6.5 6.5 M5 7.6 6.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.1 12.3 4,9 10.5 4.8 12.5 4.5 10.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0:0 4.6 0.0 0.0 01 4.4 0.0 ; 0.0 In#erSei7 _� r ma Y . HCM sth Cfrl Delay 27.1 HCM 6th LOS C Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Queues 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/09/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 248 169 151 790 73 235 141 90 201 218 v c Balm .. '010 0:60 _ . 0.4,1 O.fiO U.19 0.71 0.23' 0:24 0.59 0:31 Control Delay 21.4 20.1 11.5 20.3 18.2 47.0 5A 18.8 40.0 4.5 Qrteue Delay :0 0.0 �.0.0 ' Q.0 0.l: A0 � 0:0 � 0.0 0.0 0<0. Total Delay 21A 20.1 11.5 20.3 18.2 47.0 5,4 18.8 40.0 4.5 Queue Lerigtf?50th�(ft) 5fi ;146 32_ 151 �,21 t02 < 0 28 85 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #109 182 51 186 53 #255 39 62 #214 46 ioferrialLank is (ftj1221 273 ;: .637. 615 Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 Baas Capacitjr{iph� 354 141437U153 401 332 606 ':382 343 7tt4 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpiilbacCiap�Retluctn 0 0 0: 0 ' 00 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 10 0 0 0 11 0" 0 0 0 0 R ttuced v!c Rafir 0.70 0 54 0.41� �0.5�4 � ���fl 18 � :0.71 A 3 0.24 0'69 0.3T 95th percentile volume exceei s capaatyx queue may be longer.. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 9: South Drive & Route 125 12r09i2020 Int Delay,stveh 0.1 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol,"veh/h1 1 975 T= 5 Future Vol,vehlh _1 1 9 597 557 6 Conflicting Petls,0/hr 0, t? Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Charinelized None Ie = tlttie Storage Length 0 - Ven ln.MedianStorage,# ? Grade,% 0 0 -1 Peak Hoar Factor 8292 9232 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow, I 10 64 `9 5 7 Conflicting Flow All 1278 609 612 0 - 0 Stage 2 669 - Critical Mq "6 42 ",A2^ 4:12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Crtical Wdwy Stg 2 5,42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - PotCap-1 Maneuver '183 495 .967 Stage 1 543 - - - - Stage 2 500 Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 180 495 967 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 180 - - - - - Stage 1 534 Stage 2 509 - - - - HCM Cbntrol'Clelay,s . 18i8 HCM LOS C HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.008 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.8 0 18.8- HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th°r6#la Q(veh) 0 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCIVI 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 11: Route 125 & North Drive 12/0912020 Int Delay,s/veh 0 WINE Lane Confiigurations _ Trafficllol,tiehfh 1 0 vl 6 :563 Future Vol,veh/h_ 1 0 2 596 563 9 P,o qqn Pegs;" "r 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RTChai�e�ized None` °Noire one Storage Length 0 - - - - Vafi inMedian Storage;# 0 Grade,°la Q 0 -1 _ PeakNour actors 92 92; `.92 =02 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mumt Fkit�r �. 0 2 648 612 10 Conflicting Flow All 1269 617 622 0 - 0 Stage 1 �617 Stage 2 652 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6,22 4.12 - , 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5,42 Cc�fical Flnwy Stgti2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2,218 - - - PotManeuver 18 490959 - Stage 1 538 Stage2' 515 Platoon blocked,% - - Motir Cap-1 Maneuver 165 :490 959 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 185 - :,tag 536- Stage 2 518 - tiCM ControtDeta a 2.',6 HCM LOS C Capaaty(vehfi} 959 - 15 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.006 HCM Control Delay'{s} 0.8 0 24.6 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th 46 ile Q(veh) '0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 13: Route 114 12/09/2020 I SEEM Int Delay,s/veh 0.1 WON 15 Lane Configurations tt tt Traffic uoi,irehm. ` ;0 � D $97 6 0 6 Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 897 6 0 6 Comtc6ng,Petls:#fir: ° D 0 U '0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Chadnelizetl None = None None Storage Length - - - = 0 Veh tnMediari:Storage,# - 0 0 Grade,% 4 -2 - 0 - 0641 oucFactor 92 82 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvtnt Flow 0 975 7 0 '1 Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 491 Stage 1 Stage 2 - - - - Crthcal Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Cn6cal kldwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy Pot,C4 p1,Maneuver 0 0 523 Stage 1 0 - Stage2 =0 0 Platoon blocked,% - Mov`Cap=1 Maneuver, - 523 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - sta9e 1 Stage 2 - - - HCM Corti'Delay,s.. �0 0; HCM LOS B HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 HWC66trol.Delay,(s) 92 HCM Lane LOS - - B HCM 96t i 1 file Q(yeh) 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 15: Route 114 & West Drive 12/09/2020 int Delay,s/veh . 0 Lane Configurations t ' raffic Vdi,ueh>it 0 '8g 9' 0 � Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 894 9 0 1 Conflrctfng t'eds,#1hr Q' t �: ;". 0 Sign Control Free Free, Free Free Stop Stop RTChannehzei! ` ona. Norte:. Storage Length - - - - 0 Veh m Medran Storage,#' Grade,% - 4 -2 0 Peak Hour factor' 92- 92 .9292; `92 : 92` Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2' Nlvmit Fiouu _ 0 0 972 0 0 1 t , Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 491 Stagg 1 Stage Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - Cntrc�i'Hdwy,Stg 2- - Follow-up Hdwy - - - 3.32 _ Pot Cap=l,Mar ertuer , 0 0 �523 _ Stage 1 0 LL 0 Stage 2 '0 0 Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - . Stage 1 Stage 2 :NQ HCM Control'Delay,s 0 0 14.0 HCM LOS B Capaciiy.`rvehlhj ;523 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.002 HCM Control belay(s) HCM Lane LOS _ B HCM 95th%'0116 0" h) 0 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 B Bt WB SB2 Lane Configurations '� I tt r t r M 1 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 757 ��_2 125 739 363 147 221 137 358 190 10 Future Volume(vehIh) 23 757 92 125 739 363 147 221 137 358 190 10 Initial Q(Qb),�veh �0 � 0 �:0 :0 0 0 0:`` 0 w00 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ParkingBu`s''Ad'--- 1.00' �,1.00 � 1 X �106 '1.00 1.00 � 1.06, � 1.60 1,00 1.00 �1.00 � 1.ob Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Fiow,ve0h'/in 1806 1791 1791, 2018 2003 20,4, 1876' 1862 1936 1939 1939:. 1939 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 25 823 100 136 803 395 160 240 149 389 207 11 PeakHourFactor 0.9Q 0.92 092 0;92 0,92 0:92 0.92 0:92 0:92; 0.92 0.920 92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Cap;vehk 307 "I'l76 143 �8, 1607 991' 407 329- '438 563 A ,19 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.38 0.36 0.08 0.42 0.42 0,09 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow;i/ehlh, 1720 3064; 371 1,922 3806 1710 1787 1862 1641 3583 1825 97 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 25 458 465 136 803 395 160 240 149 389 0 218 Grp'SatFlow(s),veh/h/In 1720 1701` 1724= 1922 1903 1710 1787 1862 1641 1792 0 1922 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.6 17.2 17.3 3.2 11.7 9,6 5.5 9.3 5.6 7.8 0,0 7.8 Cycle Q Clear A,s 0.8 117:2 17.3 3.2 11.7 9.6 5.5 9.3 5.6 7.8 0,0 7:8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp:Cop(c),veh/h 307 655 664 338 1607 991 407 329 438 563 0 386 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.70 0.70 0.40 0,50 0.40 0.39 0,73 0.34 0.69 0.00 0.57 Avail Cap(c.a),veh/h 374 655 664 341 1607 991 407 343 451 594 0 430 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstreani-Filter(I) 1.00 "1.00 100, 1:00 1;"00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1:04' 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.7 19.7 19.9 14.9 16.1 8.7 22.4 29.6 22.4 30.3 0.0 27.4 Insr Delay-(d2),s&eh '0.1 6,1 6.1 0.8 1.1 1.2' 0.6 1.4 0.5 '3.2 0.0, 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °!vile BackOfQ(506/.),vehAn 0.2 7.5 7.6 1.3 5.0 3.4 2.3 4,7 2.1 3.5 0.0 3,6 Unsig.Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.8 25.8 25.9 15.7 17.2 9:9 23.0 37.0 22.9 33.5 0.0 28.8 LnGr LOS B C C B B A C D C C A C Approach Vol,veh/h 94$ 1334 549 607 Approach Delay,s/veh 25,5 14.9 29.1 31.8 Approach LOS C B C C a .: Phs Dufation(G+Y+Rc),s , 8.1 � 3fi.1 10.6 21,3 '�0<9 33.3 ' 14.4 17.4 Ghange Period{YtRc),s 6.0 �6 5.5 *6 6.0 6.0 4.5 6A Max Green Setting'(Gmax) s 5.0 *26 5.1 "17 5.0 25.9 , 10.6 12.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.6 13.7 7.5 9.8 5.2 19.3 9.8 11.3 Green Ext'Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.6 0:0 3.1 0.1 , 0.2 MIN -1 011� _. 1, y w y HCM'6th Gtrl Delay r r 23.1 HCM 6th LOS C N0t$S HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Queues 2027 SAT NO-BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/09/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 25 923 136 803 395 160 240 149 389 218 vi6 Ratio 0.07 Q 74 .0,53 " '0.49 0:34 42- .0:75 0:23 O: s 056 Control Delay 9.9 24.9 19.2 16.7 1.7 20.3 45.4 6.5 36.9 32.1 Queue Delay 0. ,0.0 : ,00,<; 0.0 0.0 O:U D.0O.oa: ' Total Delay 9.9 24.9 19:2 16.7 1.7 20.3 45.4 6.5 36.9 32.1' Queue Leng"Ofh,(ft)� �� 5` 191 ; 33,°J jj Queue Length 95th(ft) 17 261 #66 216 32 91 #208 46 135 156 14emai Lirik oiif(ft): 22 1199 ` 625 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 334 1246 256 631 11fi5; 382 331 651� 569' BaseCapaaty'(�tpfi� � _ ; Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spilit7ack Cap`Reduofn 0 ;0 0 0 0 0 0. 00 0 ' Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 Redut6dl We Ratio 0:07< 614, A,53r 0.49 '`O.34 A42 ' 0:73 0.23 .. ya Pan #`` 95tti percentile volume exaeetls capaaty,queue may t longer<;.; Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 SAT BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 L Ba PNE1037BOAMMM Lane Configurations 0 Vi tT+ I t ' t r„ Traffic i[olurne_{uet/h) _;228 669 `61 344 :: 702;' 3� 67 216 136 83 ' 183. 241 Future Volume(veh/h) 228 669 51 144 702 36 67 216 136 83 185 201 Initial:, {Qb),ve11 ,,0 . 0 ..:: 0 Ped Bike Adl(ApbT) 1.00 11.00 100 100 100 1.00 1.00 1 00 Parking Bus,Ad' 1,00 1'fl() 100 1' 1 U0 5�40 _1.00 1 00 1:00> 1:00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adl SatFlow,vellhtln' 1832 1 t332 1832 1964' 1964 1964 1$76 1862 1862 20'18 198$ 1973 ; Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 248 727 55 157 763 39 73 235 148 90 201 218 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 092 0 92 0 92 0 92 "0 92 0 92 =0:92 =092 0,92 0 92'' 0 92::' Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 17 1 1 0 2 3 Cap,vehlh 2 245 " 262 241 51,4 �. Arrive On Green 0.12 0.49 0.46 0.09 0.46 0.44 0.08 0.12 U9 0.08 0.12 0.12 Sat Flovr,veh/h 1?46 3280 1 248 1,870 3611 185 1:787 180 .1578 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 248 386 396 157 394 408 73 235 148 90 201 218 Grp Sat Flova{s),yehlhlln1745 1741 1788 187fl 1865 ;130 17$7 1862 1578 1922` 1988 1672;;. 11 Q Serve(g_s),s 5,1 10.7 10.7 10 10.5 10,5 2,5 8.5 6.4 2.9 7,2 8.3 Cyc1e: lClea (g_c),s 51 `1 (1:7; 3,0`� 10.5. °105` °`�2s5 6.5 :6'429 �7;2; Prop In Lane I.00 0,14 1,00 010 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane"Grp Cap(c),irehlh 514: .846 8691;9 $64 894 =264, 217: 245 262 2A1 397 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.30 0,46 0.46 0,28 1.08 0.61 0.34 0.84 0.55 Avail'Cal aj;veh/h; 514: 846 869. 562`; 864„ 894 353 217 W 245 349 241 397 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1,00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 UpstrearoFilte{i):� 100 1:40 1`00 100y v 100 `100 :x1a00 100 �1=:Q0 1D0 1;0 100 _..._ Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 8.7 12.4 12.5 8.6 13.3 13A 24.9 32.3 28.8 20 31.4 24.4 IncrDelay.(o2), %veh 07 �1:8 17; '0;3- 17=mv1:7 °0s .85;3 42 ' q:6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 U 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °Is le BackOfQ(50%o);vehllnl 7 " '4:6 1:1 r' 4'4 ;",46�` 1.1 8,8 :2 6,: 1.3 4;"8 Unsig, Movement Delays/veh LorpDelay{d)s/veh 9;4� 14.1 14.2 �'8.9 1�5.1' 15.1 25.5 117.6 33,0 �'25,7 512 '26.0 LnGrp LOS A B B A B B C F C C D C Approach Vol,-veh/h1930 959 456 509 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.0 14.1 75,4 363 Approach LQSB $ ED 4� a Tsia $hh Phs Du 1:3 40 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.5 6,5 4,5 6.5 6.5 6,5 4.5 6.5 Max.Green Setting;(Gmax .§ 28,5 7:5, 6:5 6:5 265 7.5 6:5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l17J,t 12.5 4.9 10.5 5,0 _12.7 4.5 10.3 Green Ext'Tirne{p�c},s 0:0 4.6 00 4:5 0.0 U HGM61:0Ctrl delay 271 HCM 6th LOS C Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Queues 2027 SAT BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 1.14 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 60 908 136 807 402 160 248 149 423 227 vc Ratio 55:3 0�3 0 36 0�2 0 7T 0;�3 t'.74 057 Control Delay 11.1 24.9 18.7 18.7 2.5 20.2 46.9 6.5 39.0 32.4 vo.o oo ooti �o Ito � o0 00 0.0 �:0 � Total Delay 11.1 24.9 18.7 18.7 2,5 20 2 46,0 6.5 39.0 32:4 Glueue.lenc,�thtth.{ft}. 14 1$7 33 159 :: ..� � Queue length 95th(ft) 31 255 62 217 46 91 #217 46 #158 162 Irtemai Link Dtsir{ft} 2Z5 :: _ 1199: _i325 w. 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 100 300 300 160 75 300 Base Capat�ty{vph} °> . 18 �235 257. . `15l6,= 1111` 382 331. 652;' S75 412 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 TO back '0Q:, . �,pd! Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduc�tl it/c Rath 0:f 9 0.7 — #, 95ifi roen�le volume'excee+`is capa�ty,queue:may belarle�.= _._ . r -- Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2027 SAT BUILD 2: Route 125 & Route 114 12/08/2020 4__ p E:T �81R W.,BI_ BR I. B 0 B B1 BR Lane Configurations tt r t r Traffic Volume(uehm) ° 55 743 92 126 Z42 370 147 228 : 137 799 1.0 Future Volume(veh/h) 55 743 92 125 742 370 147 228 137 389 199 10 . _ _. r_ Initial:Q°(G1b},veh 0 0 0 0 0 ' :. f? 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Ad1 `= fi00 ;1:00 „ 100 1:00 , 100: :r 1.40" ;1"'0'0- 0" 100 1 QO Work Zone On Approach No No No No Add Sat F1iaw,vehihlln ;1 I3i}6 1791 1791 201s 2003' 2018 `1876..':1862 1936 =199 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 60 808 100 136 807 402 160 248 149 423 216 11 Peak„HourFacfor 0;92.. 0;92 0 92 0,92 :92 °0;92 0:92 Q92 U92 U.92 0 92 0 92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Cap,;veh�h ,;323.,�1137 141�, �3331488' 950 , 415 . 35 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.37 0.35 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.09 0,18 0.18 0.16 0,21 0.21 SatFla±nr�zvehlh �_ �1720�..3047 : 377vti.1922 38Q6: ,171t? 1787- 1862 ,,1641 =`3583 1$29a Grp Volume(v),veh/h 60 451 457 136 807 402 160 248 149 423 0 227 182 7)e 17 7$7 GSa(Flw ),v 1641 1792 0; i923:` Q Serve(g_s),s 1.5 172 17.3 3.3 12.5 10.4 5.4 9.6 5,5 8.5 0.0 &0 Cycle Q Clar(g:c),s 1;;5 171 , 1,2:5 10:45.4 9.6 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c},�rehlh' 323 635 643 333 1488 .:950 °- 415 ` :335 445 590 0 407 V/C Ratio(X) 0,19 0.71 0.71 0,41 0.54 0.42 0.39 0.74 0.33 0.72 0.00 0.66 Avail Cap(c_aj;vehlh 355 635 643 335 1488 950` 415 343 452 594 :b' 430 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filte4 1:0Q 100 1 rJ0 100 100: 100 ;too� 1,00. too 1.00 0:00 1.00' �: Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 13.0 20.3 20.5 15.4 17.9 9.8 22.1 29.5 22.2 30.1 0.0 26.8 Iriprelayd2};s/veh0>3 fi.6 �6:5, 0:8 ;`1.4 ` :1.? 0.6 8i 0,4 4:1 'D.O.: 1:4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °bile,BackOfQ(50°l),veh/lrfl 6 7.5 7.,'7' . 1'4 ' .6.4, 3'i8 2.2 49 '21. 3.9 Ob 17 Unsig, Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d)slveh. 13 3 '26.9 .27.1'�"16:2' 19.3 11.2 22,7 37.6' 22.6 34.2 A.0'' 28:2 LnGrp LOS B C C B B B C D C C A C Approach Vol,vehlh 968 1345 557 650 Approach Delay,slveh 26.2 16.6 29.3 32.1 1.1 Approach LOS C B C C Pts`Duratiiir%(G+Y+Ficj;,s9;6�33.7 18:6i 221 � 110 4�324" 15.D� 'j7:7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 *6 5.5 *6 6.0 6,0 4.5 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gma x . *,,26 51 *.17 &O, 25.9 .10.6 IZO Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),Es 14:5 7.4 10.0 5.3 19.3 10.5 11.6 Green Ext;Time(p_cj,s 0:0 5.6 0:0 -0 7 0.0 3.1' 0.0 0.1 Ft M,6ft CtrL D,e' `" 24;f'; HCM 6th LOS C e *HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Queues 2027 SAT BUILD 1: Route 133 & Route 114 12/08/2020 Lane Group Flow(vph) 248 782 157 802 73 235 148 90 201 218 v/c Ra6o 0:70 Q 6D 4 43 ` 0:61 019 A, 0 24 0;24; 0 59 0 31 Control Delay 21.6 20.1 11.7 20.3 18.3 4T9 5.4 18.9 40.5 4:5 Queueetay op o a a:o oo oo oo. . . Total Delay 21.6 201 11.7 20.3 18.3 47.9 5.4 18.9' 40.5 4.5 Queus Lengttiv50tti{ft) 56 ., 0 ,_ , ; 27 85, Queue length 95th(ft) #112 185 53 190 53 #255 40 62 #214 46 InternalLlnk Dist{'tj P 1,221 ;`' 273 ; 637 ' -615 Turn Bay Length(ft) 300 200 130 140 353 141 368 1453 398 327 608 379 339: 7t)1 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p Sptllbacli Cap ReslucM 0 . 0 0 0 : 0 {h 0 ; 00 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ReducedCc Ratio t):7Q : 0.5v..,4-f 43 - O s5 0:18 U:72 0.24 0.24 0,59 0 31. :. All #': 95th"percentile volume=exceeds capacityr,queue;may'tie longer a Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT BUILD 9: South Drive & Route 125 _ 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.7 Lane Configurations c� traffic llof 46hlh 0 70 0 Future Vol,vehlh 0 70 0 652 528 6. ConfliGhngPetls,#Ihr 0 Q` : Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free FreeFree RT Citiannelizetl = None": Storage Length - Veh h"NetliarrStorage,# 0 Grade,% 0 0 -1 - Peak Hbtar`t=actar 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvintFtaw :` 0 76 0; 7095�74� ` 7 Conflicting Flow All 1287 578 581 0 - 0 Stagi3'1` '578 _ Stage 2 709 Gr6cal Hdwy �6:42=;6.2Z r 412� � �; ti Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Crihcai Hdwy9' Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 TMene0ver181 516 993 Stage 1 561 5tage�2 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cif-!'Maneuver 181 �`a16' 19 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 181 = - Stage l 561 Stage 2 488 - - - - - HAM Control Delay;s0' HCM LOS B Capadty HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.147 NCM Contrei Delay(s) 0 13.2 HCM Lane LOS A B HM956%Ie Q(ueh) 0 - 0,5 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT BUILD 11: Route 125_&_North_Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,siveh 1.5 IN Lane Configurations Trafific Vol,vehlh58 Future Vol,veh%h 30 0 71 5811 5 45 v_. w Sign Control Stop Stop Free free Free "Free µ RT Channefized= None. - [��n;� pt'r� Storage Length 0 - - - Vett in.Median Storages# 0 . - ' Grade,% Q Fmk Wour,�'act®r': 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 1 Iumt Flog 333 Conflicting Flow All 1385 599 623 0 0 _ Stage 1 `599 Stage 2 786 - - n Cnacal Helwy 6 42 6:22 4:12 ,; Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - r Critical Hdwy Sfg: 5 4 e Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 = - - Pat,Cap-f'Maneuver 158 . 502 =:958 Stage 1 549 - - Stage 2 _ 449 Platoon blocked,°!o - Mov Cap-E Maneuver 138 ` 502' s5$. ...... Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 138 - - ° Stage 9. 481 Stage 2 449 - H-C- HCM LOS E HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.081 0,236` kICM CantioDelar(s� ' 9: � :, 39 HCM Lane LOS A A E r NCM 95ttr 96ti1e 4(veh� � :3 0:9 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2027 SAT BUILD 15: Route 114 & West Drive 12/08/2020 Int Delay,s/veh 0.8 M777r 56 0 ,-61 Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 844 56 0 61 Coniflctingetls;`#lir :0. ' 0 `0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop R'-Channelized � None None ',None Storage Length - - _ - - 0 Ueh m,tJ1ed[an Stivage; Grade,% 4 -2 - 0 - P6WH-bur Factor. :-92 :,92 92:� 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow : 0 � � .91i° 61 0` 66 Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 489 Stagel Stage 2 Critical ry 6 94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - Crtical Htluuy Stg2 fidil Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 R®t Cap-1 Marieayer 0: _ 0 525 Stage 1 0 _ - 0 - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap�1`Maneuver. - 625 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Cor►trcl[)slay,-s m, .0 — 12.8 HCM LOS B HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.126 HCM Control Delay(s) - 122 HCM Lane'LOS - - B HCM 95th%tile"Q{veh} - t}.4 Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 VEHICLE QUEUE DATA Dunkin' Donuts Drive Thru Queues 264 Main Street - Nashua -NH Thursday May 24,2018 Saturday June 02,2018 AM SAT 7:00 4 10:00 6 7:05 6 10:05 3 7:10 5 10:10 9 7:15 3 10:15 8 7:20 3 10:20 8 7:25 3 10:25 12; 7:30 7 10:30 9 7:35 6 10:35 10 7:40 10 10:40 11 7:45 9 10:45 9 7:50 10 10:50 7 7:55 8 10:55 8 8:00 7 11:00 6 8:05 6 11:05 5 8:10 6 11:10 3 8:15 6 11:15 10 8:20 11 11:20 9 8:25 13; 11:25 8 8:30 11 11:30 6 8:35 9 11:35 2 8:40 9 11:40 4 8:45 8 11:45 3 8:50 12 11:50 3 8:55 8 11:55 4 12:00 4 Average 7.5 12:05 3 95th % 11.85 12:10 7 12:15 8 12:20 4 12:25 3 12:30 4 12:35 5 12:40 3 12:45 3 12:50 2 12:55 4 Average 5.92 95th % 10.8 DUNKIN' ESTAU T DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW VEHICLE QUEUE OBSERVATIONS' Location/Queue Length in Vehicles 1534 Commercial Street 174 Bridge Street 39 Winter Street Saturday Saturday Saturday Weekday (11:00 AM- Weekday (11:00 AM- Weekday (11:00 AM- (7:00-9:00 AM) 2:00 PM) (7:00-9:00 AM) 2:00 PM) (7:00-9:00 AM) 2:00 PM) Average 9 5 6 2 5 1 Maximum 15 14 12 7 9 5 95"Percentile 13 11 10 5 8 3 'Conducted in March 2015. Measured from the pick-up window to the end of vehicle queue. 419&435 Andover Street Mixed-Use Development-North Andover Vehicle Queue Calculations-ATM Lane Saturday Midday Peak Hour Teller Lane Arrival Rate(X)= 23.0 veh/hr Service Rate= 1.5 min/veh Maximum Service Flow Rate at 1.5 min/veh, W)= 40 veh/hr _ X _ 23.0 0.58 P µ 40.0 4 Vehicle Cumulative Queue Teller Lane VehIcle Queue Probability Probability 0 ptU}=1-P= 0.425 0.425 Vehicc Ve" eletioamfl Duaue 1 pill=PtU)"P'= 0.244 0.669 i vahkia 2 pt2}=ptU}"p-= 0.141 0.810 3 p{3}=p{0}*p'= 0.081 0.89111-11h V."ceti.: Vehbie QUBUfl 4 p{4)=ptU}"p'= 0.046 0.937 4 Veh(c�az 5 p{5}=p{0}*p'= 0.027 0.964 6 p{6}=p{0}*p"= 0.015 0.979 7 p{7}=p{0}*p'= 0.009 0.988 8 p{8}=p{0}*p"= 0.005 0.993 9 p{9}=p{0}*P"= 0.003 0.996 10 P(10)=p{0}*p'0= 0.002 0.998 11 p{11}=p{0}*p"= 0.001 0.999 12 p{12}=p{0}*p"= 0.001 0.999 13 p{13}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 14 p{l4}=p{0}*P14= 0.000 1.000 15 p{1.5}=p{0}*p75= 0.000 1.000 16 p{16}=p{0}*p'"= 0.000 1.000 17 p{17}=p{0}* p = 0.000 1.000 18 p{181=P{0}*p7e= 0.000 1.000 19 p{19}=p{0}*p"= 0,000 1.000 20 p{20}=p{0}*p10= 0.000 1.000 21 p{21}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 22 p{22}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 23 p{23}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 24 p{24}=p{o}*p`4= 0.000 1.000 25 p{25}=p{0}*pE'= 0.000 1.000 26 p{26}=p{0}*p`"= 0.000 1.000 27 p{27}=p{0}*p`'= 0.000 1.000 28 p{28}=p{0}*p1"= 0.000 1.000 29 p{29}=p{0}*p""= 0.000 1.000 30 p{30}=p{0}*p'0= 0.000 1.000 31 p{31}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 32 p{32}=p{0}*p'1= 0.000 1.000 33 p{33}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 34 p{34}=p{0}*p'^= 0.000 1.000 35 p{35}=p{0}*p"= 0.000 1.000 Average Vehicle Queue for ATM Lane= 1 Vehicle 95t"Percentile Vehicle Queue for ATM Lane=4 Vehicles Job No.8231 Andover Queue Analysis 12/9/2020 r + ANDOVH §IBJEE — - ; .� -- . - -"- -- - - - _ - - - -f - '�"."°" - - � - - - c- m __ ..�=c__ _ _ _ - -- - _ _ ..+- t w 13,! _ _ _.. _._.._.._ ... .. x _ ..'ate 6 1 �5 — f- ' 'a tr. • r I _ y. , ^C ,F � 1 s � ��� � � z waal••� ..�� „. .:.: .., rs.. ��� �x �e ��� ,,d gg�� � � A .. ��rusvrytua..ef� s , PERMIT SET x x •` - a.wv ".nn ,J �� i^' axoPOLr�srx� PLAN DOCUMENTS :. . f CROSSPOINT x r ASSOCIATES .r F` 9 t J / `r BOHLERY a 'f EXLILHTr LAYOUT PLAN NOTES _ �.. , e.m:,ur.ra rb+krwtlxa.anxn,�v .x.aes:xr+ae PASSENGER GAR - ,... ,:r.kw,d.«,.... .,.,•,,...,a.o„n,,..,.e,rc DRIVE-THRU N QUEUES i CA-05 i n _ SHARED PARKING DEMAND CALCULATIONS Parkl g Derhand Calculatlons-Proposed Retail Plaza Redevelopment-419&435 Andover Street-North Andover,Massachusetts Average Peak Demand _ Land Use Starbucks Bertucci's Medical Office Bank Total Land Use Starbucks Bertucci's Medical Office Bank Total LUC 937 932 720 912 (Spaces) LUC 937 932 720 912 (Spaces) Size 2,352 180 5,148 3,352 Size 2,352 180 5,148 3,352 Rate 5.22 0.33 3.23 3.72 Rate 8.70 0.34 0.56 3.05 Peak 12 59 17 12 Peak 20 61 3 10 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 9 0 2 1 12 7:00 AM 15 0 0 1 16 8:00 AM 11 0 7 3 21 8:00 AM 18 0 1 2 21 9:00 AM 12 0 15 7 34 9:00 AM 20 0 3 6 29 10:00 AM 11 15 17 10 53 10:00 AM 18 53 3 8 82 11:00 AM 9 25 17 11 62 11:00 AM 15 55 3 9 82 12:00 PM 9 56 14 10 89 12:00 PM 15 61 2 9 87 1:00 PM 9 56 13 11 89 1:00 PM 15 60 2 9 86 2:00 PM 7 29 16 11 63 2:00 PM 12 52 3 9 76 3:00 PM 7 23 16 12 58 3:00 PM 12 45 3 10 70 4:00 PM 7 22 15 11 55 4:00 PM 12 35 3 9 59 5:00 PM 7 37 9 9 62 5:00 PM 12 38 2 7 59 6:00 PM 7 58 0 4 69 6:00 PM 12 46 0 4 62 7:00 PM 7 59 0 1 67 7:00 PM 12 48 0 1 61 8:00 PM 7 49 0 0 56 8:00 PM 12 46 0 0 58 9:00 PM 7 30 0 0 37 9:00 PM 12 34 0 0 46 10:00 PM 0 17 0 0 17 10:00 PM 0 28 0 0 28 Peak 9 56 13 11 89 Peak 15 61 2 9 87 VEHICLE TURNING TEMPLATE PLANS ANDOVER STRt _ ._._,...._ _- '� i 77 _ i -�- _��- t rewunr.ru.oun r�v.an «" - - 33 e' s .;_ Im �rx.nuir PERMITSEf r r. 1 li C ,r "�`•` PROPOSED SITE PLAN DOGUNEMTS r r t:. f4 CROSSPOINT - r f ASSOCIATES BOHLERI v,, a $U ORUC PROFILE 'gym inrr�Ynrwon- 1 1 l - ..�BOMrEryix�rF.p...r F ' Win" ,ti ExRialrcnrouTPuxxaTE�, .a.T,,.g LOADING A � TRUCK TURN PLAN c -01 1 A _ _`r' _ - - - - - Cam 1 ANDOVER STREET ... - v _v � ins — 3� ° r. gi 10 # ERMIT SET PRDPOffED SITE r 1• PLAN DOCUMENTS CROSSPOINT ASSOCIATES s { BO LER// ' _ �i, .,,.���,•`.•.. .(, ,• ��•. Fve.IO TRUCK PROFILE. o"�wen.roiww cn�3e"sm` - Liu° EMMUT LAYOUT PLAN PUTTES _. LOADING 1 TRUCK 1V PLAN PLAN p C -02 ANdOVER STF2E .-lW9NSatF13V .,,ea-e, ^_ ^� _ WT --^ le IR - , - i .r i r x a _ x PERMIT SET PWDOCUMENTS r - _ CROSSPOINT ASSOCIATES f .�yx� nmrv�ar y` r r >M g „ t wvm.En,w GARBAGE TRUCK(6tl-]0)PRQFIIE +Frww�.+4ass:Y�rw�t: A� e � e rxxrtr�rFsro �«sr,�crs N, .a -r, _ { �pJ nuv.4µ )+/I6ML''.Mr1147CC♦4W -z.,' '" •; �t.. .�, `x« .ia.�. �...:r.. :.�:, TRUCK TURN PLAN CA-03 - _ ANDOVERSTREEL f If MM - t Y r r , f S 1 PERMIT SET t r PLAN DOCUMENTS .. - fi CROSSPOINT ASSOCIATES t PAdSFGER 6At PROFILE r • � bMOMFIM r`1 p t p . fff EANIBfT LAYOUT PLAN NOTES PASSENGER JJ CAR TURN PLAN ws C cA-o4 - fam - - Yi rtt4dERTREt�„ rt La 3 i r _skim I MAal03 , O 3 PERMIT SET z r J!Roro r // sm meoiiT jE'tOYS:. ;,.. } ( `�" ;• I NT ASSOMATES BOHLERU y '� j ..rn ' - •,-� NO.ANDOYER JOO'LADDER.PAOFILE. • m wao. f EXHIBIT LAYOUT PLAN NOTES .aurxnrr: FIRE TRUCK L a CIRCULATION PLAN 1V- CA-02 _ 6 j ffi RIF _ r 1111 � .. 77 i PERMIT SET + �.�w.w r i � f ' '�-.• -�' PRoroaeD SITE <f �� A - PLAN DOCUMENTS CROSSPOINT ASSOCIATES BOH iw,>, .x.noovenw ' L /` NO.ANDOVER 100'LADOER-PfdO.FI7.0 r - a .d € MI N EXHIBIT LAYOUT PLAN NOTES _. FIRE TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN pI� .e Ly� i ukorr�mcrv¢arva nvrwrnwua mores wennroou.ae V a 146 Dasoomb Road Andover,MA 01810 978.794.1792 TheEngineeringCorp.com TEE: create I Design I Innovate The Engineering Corp Ms. Jean Enright December 14, 2020 Planning Director Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 419-435 Andover Street, Methuen, MA Civil and Traffic Engineering Peer Review Dear Ms. Enright and Members of the Planning Board: On behalf of the Town of North Andover, TEC, Inc. reviewed documents as part of the civil engineering peer review for the proposed site to be located at 419-435 Andover Street. Crosspoint Associates, Inc. ("Applicant") submitted the following documents prepared by Bohler Engineering and Vanasse and Associates, Inc. (VAI), which were reviewed by TEC for conformance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws and Site Plan Standards, and generally accepted industry standards: ® Site plan entitled "Proposed Site Plan Development - #419-435 Andover Street, Town of North Andover, Massachusetts;" prepared by Bohler Engineering; revised December 8, 2020. ® Architectural Plans, prepared by Phase Zero Designs, dated October 22, 2020; ® Special Permit Application and Site Plan Review, prepared by Crosspoint Associates, Inc.; ® Transportation Impact Assessment — Proposed Commercial Redevelopment 419 & 435 Andover Street — North Andover, Massachusetts; prepared by Vanasse and Associates, Inc., dated October 2020; ® Memorandum entitled "Response to Peer Review Comments — Proposed Mixed-Use Development 4417-435 Andover Street, North Andover, Massachusetts;" prepared by Vanasse and Associates, Inc.; dated December 9, 2020. For consistency, the original comment numbers have been retained from the most recent TEC Peer Review letter dated November 23, 2020. The Applicant's responses to the comments are shown as bold; TEC's responses are shown as italic. Site Plan Review Comment No. 1 The Applicant should confirm on the Site Development Plans the sight distance triangles in both directions from each driveway (or one direction if right-in / right- out driveway). The Site Development Plans should indicate the areas within those sight triangles where vegetation and signage are to be removed or kept low. VAIIResponse: Sight distance triangles have been added to the plans for each driveway in the appropriate directions. Notation has also been added to the site layout plan indicating that vegetation within these areas shall be no taller than 3 feet. All proposed and existing signage, including the existing ertucci's sign on Route 114, have been located to ensure they are not located within the required sight triangle at each location. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. 0758\TO758.12\Docs\Letters\TO758.12_Peer lljoe Ma , ZME&Review #2.docx 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development . EU The Engineering Corp December 14, 2020 Page 2 of 13 Comment No. 2 The Applicant should provide a vehicular circulation plan which shows that the Town of North Andover's largest fire truck can adequately enter, exit, and circulate the site in the event of emergency and ensure designated fire lanes are clearly depicted. VAI Response: Fire truck turning exhibits are included with this response and have been provided to the Fire Department. Confirmation was received from the Town that these were acceptable as submitted. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 3 The Applicant should provide a vehicular circulation plan which shows that a garbage truck (front-loading) can adequately circulate the site and access the dumpster enclosures. Note that the truck should maintain the same directional flow during pick-up as traditional vehicles. VAI Response: A garbage truck turning exhibit is included with this response. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 4 The Applicant should provide a turning template showing an extended pick-up truck circulating the drive-through at the bank and the restaurant. This abrupt type turn has been noted as a concern at the neighboring Burger King drive-through. VAI Response: An AASHTO passenger car turning exhibit is included with this response to show circulation around the drive-through uses. This is a 19-foot-long by 7- foot-wide vehicle that captures most reasonable vehicle sizes. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 5 The Site Development Plans do not appear to provide sufficient space along the bank drive aisle for a standard vehicle to reverse and exit the site from the last parking space to the south. VAIResponse: An AASHTO passenger car turning exhibit is included with this response to show this turning movement. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 6 The Site Development Plans do not depict the reconstruction of accessible ramps or the reapplication of new crosswalks across driveway locations which are to be relocated or modified. The plans do note that these are to be completed as part of a future MassDOT improvement project; however, than plans should depict these improvements at the expense of the Applicant in the event the site construction commences/ is completed prior to the MassDOT project (as noted in the TIA). VAI Response: Accessible ramps and crosswalks have been added across new driveway locations, and curbing and sidewalk have been added at existing driveway locations to be closed, based on the assumption that the project will be constructed in advance of the MassDOT roadway improvements. TEC Response: The Applicant has depicted sidewalk, accessible ramp, and crosswalk construction within SHLO at the driveway openings along Route 125. The Applicant should note that pending the MassDOT construction date, the sidewalk, ramps, and crosswalks may need to be modified to fit the existing curb line vs. the proposed MassDOT work. TEC concurs that no crossing is shown at the Route 114 driveway as there is no sidewalk here in the existing condition. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_PeerReview#2.docx Engineering es Solutions Today. 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development The Engineering Corp December 14, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Comment No. 7 The off-street parking dimensional requirements note that pavement width for one- way aisles is 16-feet and two-way aisles is 25-feet. (Section 195-8.5.A.). ® The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 is noted as 9.1-feet. ® The drive aisle circulating Bertucci's is noted as 20-feet (understanding that this is partially an existing condition). According to Section 8.5.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board. VAI Response: The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 has been increased to 11 feet as shown on the revised Site Plans included with this response. This width has been deemed sufficient for this layout and use as shown by the provided turning exhibits. No work or changes are proposed within the majority of the Sertucci's restaurant parking lot in order to allow them to remain operational. Relief is requested as required for these dimensions. TEC Response: TEC concurs that appropriate turning exhibits have been provided. Final approval of reduction of drive aisle widths is at the discretion of the Planning Board. Comment No. 8 The plan set should include a signage summary table for all on-site and off-site signage. A sign summary shall also be included which depicts the sign legend, sign size, and sign lettering dimensions in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). VAI Response: A sign summary table has been added to the Site Plans for all signage located on-site with the appropriate requested information. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 9 The Site Plans should provide an area for loading, deliveries, drop-offs, etc. associated with the proposed bank, restaurant, and urgent care facility. VAI Response: Truck loading turning exhibits are included with this response to show access and areas for loading during off-peak hours for each of the uses on- site. TEC Response: The turning templates provided clearly show that a WB-40 truck can enter, circulate, and exit the site. TEC assumes that the truck would unload within the existing drive aisle. Because there is no physically separated loading zone, TEC recommends that the Board require all loading operations to occur during off- peak hours. Comment No. 10 All compact parking spaces should be labeled on the site plan, including proposed (new) spaces and existing spaces to remain. VAI Response: A parking legend has been added to the Site Layout Plan to differentiate compact parking spaces from standard parking spaces on-site. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 11 Along the northern property line(abutting map 24, lot 33), two different size angled parking spaces are shown. The Site Plans should clearly label the dimensions of T:\T0758\TO758.12\Docs\Letters\TO758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr Qs Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development TEE:rn .r Corp9 ng December 14, 2020 Page 4 of 13 all parking spaces. The size of these spaces also impacts the width of the proposed drive aisle, currently shown as 16-feet. VAI Response: Additional dimensions have been added to the parking spaces which have consistent depth, width and angle. TEC Response: Six angled spaces along the northern property line (abutting map 24, lot 33) are drawn with a depth of 20-feet. Eight angled spaces along the northern property line are drawn with a depth of 18-feet. TEC assumes this is a drafting error and all spaces are meant to be drawn with a depth of 18-feet. This minor error could be addressed as a condition of approval at the discretion of the Planning Board. Comment No. 12 TEC believes that the intent of the Zoning Bylaw is to provide a stall depth of 18- feet for all angled parking. For 60-degree angle parking, TEC believes that the dimension between the drive aisle and curb line (measured perpendicular) should be 20-feet in order to accomplish an 18-foot depth. According to Section M.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board. VAI Response: The angled parking spaces at the site are designed and dimensioned to be 18.0 feet in depth, angled at 60-degrees, as was interpreted to be required by the Zoning Bylaws. If TEC's interpretation is correct, the applicant would request relief for the parking spaces as proposed. Since the angled spaces are located along 16-foot-wide one-way drive aisles, alongside a 12-foot drive-through lane, there should be ample width for parking and vehicular access. This allows the project to maximize the width of the landscape buffers. TEC Response: The Planning Board should confirm if relief is required or if the parking spaces meet the Bylaw as drawn. TEC has provided a sketch attached to this letter as clarification. It should be noted that 24 total angled parking spaces are provided. All 24 spaces are defined at the front by a vertical concrete curb that will allow most vehicles to overhang the curb providing additional depth. Comment No. 13 TEC understands that much of the existing parking around Bertucci's is narrower than current Town zoning standards. The Applicant should consider providing an alternative that would redesign much of these spaces as standard while distributing other compact spaces to other locations on the site. This alternative may reduce the overall number of spaces provided. These alternatives should be presented for review by the Planning Board. VAI Response: The intent is to minimize impacts to the existingBertucci's restaurant and within the associated parking lot as part of the proposed project. As noted by TEC, adjustments to the existing parking lot would reduce the number of parking spaces and impact the landscape in this area. The restaurant has experienced a challenging year during the pandemic, and the hope is to allow their operations to continue as much as possible throughout the duration of construction on-site, by minimizing the limit of work. For these reasons, the parking spaces, drive aisles and ADA access is proposed to remain as existing and the applicant would request any necessary relief. TEC Response: The Applicant has not presented any alternatives. The Planning Board should determine if alternatives would provide any benefit for their review. Comment No. 14 The Applicant should provide a review and confirmation that the existing accessible stalls at Bertucci's (including the associated hatched aisles, curb T:\T0758\TO758.12\Docs\Letters\TO758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr °S Solutions Today. 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development December 14, 2020 G Tn�Enrn� ��c�rp Page 5 of 13 ramps, sidewalks) meet the latest version of the Architectural Access Board regulations. VAI Response: See response to Comment 13. TEC Response: The Planning Board should determine if the existing accessible stalls and ramps should be reconstructed to meet code. Comment No. 15 The site does not meet the minimum requirements for number of total parking stalls. TEC understands that the Applicant is seeking a special permit to reduce the total number of spaces, and to allow compact spaces. VAI Response: As indicated, the applicant is seeking a special permit for a reduction in the total number of required parking spaces, and to allow compact spaces. TEC Response: No response required. The Applicant has requested a reduction in parking. Comment No. 16 The TIA identifies bicycle racks on-site as a Transportation Demand Management measure. The Applicant should revise the plans to depict the location of racks. VAI Response: The bicycle rack location has been depicted on the Site Plans. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 17 The Applicant should note Do Not Enter signage on the back side of the STOP sign for the drive aisle parallel to Route 125 at the north end. VAI Response: "Do Not Enter" signage has been added to the back side of the appropriate "Stop"sign for the drive aisle parallel to Route 125. "Do Not Enter" pavement striping has also been added to this location. TEC Response: Applicant has provided the Do Not Enter on separate pole 12-feet from stop-sign which is acceptable as sign messages are in opposing directions. Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 18 The Applicant should consider extending the beginning of the drive-through pavement markings further along the building and provide legend pavement markings at the start of the drive-through to indicate the lane purpose. VAI Response: The drive-through striping has been extended along the building in order to further emphasize the designated purpose of this lane and drive-through queue length. The current design can accommodate 15 passenger cars in the marked drive-through lane. TEC Response: The Applicant has adjusted accordingly. As the TIA noted the 95th percentile storage at thirteen (13) vehicles, the pavement marking could be backed off a few feet as revised in order to keep the urgent care main entrance clear. Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 19 Sheet C-901 of the Site Development Plans depicts a crosswalk detail. Please modify the detail to show the typical distance to stop-line where applicable. It is preferred that the crosswalk markings also be 12-inches thick. VAI Response: Notation has been added to this detail in order to clarify the typical distance to a stop-line where appropriate on Sheet C-901. The detail has also been modified to show 12" wide pavement striping. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 20 Whereas additional pedestrian signage details are expected to be added to the plan based on a prior comment, please note that the height of the bottom of the T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr 's Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development TEU December 14, 2020 ,"' 'rho Engineering Corp= Page 6 of 13 sign shall be 7'-0" similar to the height shown on Sheet C-902 with the Do Not Enter sign. VAI Response: Notation has been added to this detail to specify this minimum height of 7'- 0"from the proposed grade to the bottom of the sign as noted in the "Do Not Enter" sign detail on Sheet C-902. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 21 The typical concrete and monolithic concrete sidewalk details on Sheet C-902 notes only a minimum sidewalk cross-slope of 1/8"per foot(approx. 1.0%). Please revise the detail to note a maximum 1.5% cross-slope with 0.5%± tolerance to ensure all sidewalks are below the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) maximum of 2.0%. VAI Response: The detail has been revised to note a maximum 1.5% cross-slope with ±0.5% tolerance in order to ensure that all concrete sidewalks meet the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board ( ) maximum cross-slope of 2.0%. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Comment No. 22 The Applicant should indicate where snow storage is to be provided on the Site Layout Plan. VAI Response: Several snow storage areas have been identified on the Site Plans. As required and once capacity on site is exceeded, snow will be removed and transported off site. TEC Response: Comment Closed. No further response required. Traffic Impact and Access Study Comment No. 23 Andover Street in the vicinity of the project is under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). The Applicant should further coordinate with MassDOT on the issuance of a Permit to Access State Highway. VAI Response: The applicant has held a meeting with MassDOT District 4 staff to review the proposed redevelopment project, including proposed modifications to the site access plan as contemplated in the MassDOT corridor improvement plans to Turnpike Street (Route 114) and Andover Street (Route 125). Additionally, the applicant has also met with the design consultant and MassDOT project engineer developing the Route 114 corridor improvement plans, has provided and will continue to coordinate the site access design with the future improvements prepared for the corridor. TEC Response: Although coordination is ongoing, no further response required. Comment No. 24 The project site, along State Highway Layout(SHLO) results in 2,446 new ADT for methodology identified by the MassDOT Private/Public Development Unit(PPDU). With the existing Bertucci's on-site; the development may result in greater than 3,000 trips per day (understanding that Ethan Allen and day spa will lessen this burden) by segmentation. The Applicant shall coordinate with MassDOT PPDU on whether further permitting is required through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering r 's Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development The Engineering Cerp December 14, 2020 Page 7 of 13 VAI Response: The applicant will consult with the Public/Private Development Unit prior to the filing for the Permit to Access State Highway, relative to the need for future permitting through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. It is noted that while conservatively not accounted for in the TIA traffic analysis, the internal capture between the various land uses on site, thereby resulting in less external trips, coupled with the removal of trips associated with the commercial space to be razed as part of the Project results in daily trip generation increases that fall below the thresholds requiring the preparation of an Environmental Notification Form. TEC Response: Although coordination is ongoing, no further response required. Comment No. 25 The traffic study area includes six (6) intersections in the vicinity of the site; including four (4) existing site driveways. Based upon the size and scope of the development, TEC finds that the study area as provided in the TIA is sufficient to capture the effects of the project on surrounding roadways based on Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) guidelines set forth by MassDOT. This includes an evaluation of intersection in which the site-generated trips increase the peak hour traffic volume by more than 5 percent and/or by more than 100 vehicles per hour per MassDOT's TIA Guidelines (Section 3.I.C). The Applicant should at a minimum provide a calculated value of % impact for the intersection of Peters Street at Andover Street (the third intersection in the triangle network). If an impact of greater of 5% or 100 trips persists, the Applicant should provide additional operational analysis and site related mitigation as warranted. VAI Response: The study area evaluated as part of the TIA was selected to include those locations expected to accommodate the majority of project-related traffic increases, both new and pass-by, as well as those locations currently under design along the Route 114 and Route 125 corridors. In order to identify whether projected traffic increases at the intersection of Peters Street and Andover Street meet the criteria to justify additional operational analysis the increase in peak hour trips associated with the Project, as well as the percent increase in peak hour volumes were evaluated. While this location was not included in the Functional Design Report (FD ) prepared in support of the Route 114 corridor improvements, the proximity to the downstream intersections within the triangle at Route 114 allow for the determination of traffic arriving and departing this location via both locations, to allow for an estimation of total traffic volumes at this location during peak hours. Based on this methodology, the total traffic volume at this location ranges from approximately 2,100 vehicles per hour(vph) during the weekday morning and Saturday midday peak hours to approximately 2,850 vph during the weekday evening peak hour. Project-related traffic increases are projected to amount to approximately 20 new vehicle trips during the weekday morning and weekday evening commuter peak hours and approximately 30 peak hour trips during the Saturday midday peak hour. This level of increase amounts to an approximately 1 to 1.5 percent increase in peak hour traffic volumes as compared to future No-Build conditions. As such, Project-related traffic increases are not expected to meet either the minimum vehicular volume increase or percentage increase criteria to warrant additional study of Project-related impacts at this location. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr 1 S Today. 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development TEC December 14, 2020 The Englneerfn4Corp Page 8 of 13 In order to ensure that no significant safety concerns have been previously identified at this location, MassDT's Top Crash Location database were also reviewed to ensure this location is not identified as a Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSI ) cluster location, due to frequency and/or severity of crashes occurring at this location. Based on a review of this data, no safety deficiencies were identified at the intersection of Route 125 and Route 133. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 26 Although Comment#3 above indicates TEC's concurrence with the study area as defined in the TIAS, TEC notes that the Applicant should coordinate with MassDOT on the potential project impacts at additional intersections which are currently under the purview of reconstruction as part of off-site transportation improvements along Route 114 and Route 125 by others. Additional intersections may be included in a coordinated signal network which may require further evaluation by the Applicant should minor signal timings be modified as a result of the Applicant post-occupancy. VAI Response: The applicant has held a meeting with MassDOT and their design engineer to review the Route 114 corridor improvement project and has also provided the traffic projections and analyses associated with the redevelopment project for review and inclusion in the future corridor improvement design as warranted. The proponent will continue to coordinate with MassDOT as part of the review of the Permit to Access State Highway application. TEC Response: Although coordination is ongoing, no further response required. Comment No. 27 The Applicant has provided traffic data collection within the study area based on counts provided by MassDOT published as part of the Route 114 corridor improvement project. The Applicant should provide a date for the counts which was not provided in the study. Based on the date of the Route 114 Corridor Functional Design Report publication, TEC assumes that the 2020 traffic volumes are pre-COVID and do not need to be adjusted accordingly. VAI Response: The traffic volume data collected and utilized in the June 2020 Functional Design Report were collected in March 2017 when area schools were in session. These volumes were seasonally adjusted to reflect average month conditions in accordance with MassDOT guidelines. As part of the initial review of the existing condition traffic volume data utilized for this assessment, traffic volumes that were recently collected by MassDOT in 2019, which preceded the COVID-19 epidemic, were reviewed to identify whether there was any significant change in traffic volumes since the collection of traffic counts utilized in the 2020 FDR. Based on a review of data collected at Count Station 5060, located on Turnpike Street, south of Route 133, average daily traffic volumes experienced a moderate decrease as compared to the data collected in 2017. As such, the collected data is assumed to provide a representative, if not slightly conservative assessment of existing conditions. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Dots\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering ®s Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development December 14, 2020 The Engineering Corp Page 9 of 13 Comment No. 28 The TIA utilizes the FDR's 2040 traffic volumes as for the 2027 No-Build and Build scenarios. These therefore provide a significantly conservative analysis condition for the TIA. VAI Response: VAI concurs that the horizon year evaluated results in a conservative assessment of future traffic conditions within the study area. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 29 The safety analysis section for the report covers the recent crash history of the study intersections and their evaluation as part of a Road Safety Audit conducted in 2014. Much of the improvements outlined in the RSAs are incorporated in the MassDOT Route 114 project independent of the site work. Considering the length of time that has passed since the RSA, the Applicant should provide a description of any substantial change in crash history, if necessary, so that additional safety improvements could be identified along the corridor intersections. The Applicant should discuss opportunities to incorporate these into the MassDOT project. VAI Response: VAI has reviewed the crash history at the signalized intersections of Route 114 with both Route 133 and Route 125. The crash data evaluated as part of the Road Safety Audit revealed an average of approximately 11 crashes per year at the intersection of Route 114 with Route 133 and approximately 17 motor vehicle collisions per year at the intersection of Route 114 at Route 125. A review of the crash data evaluated as part of the TIA (2015- 2019), as compared to the data provided in the RSA (2010-2012), reveals the crash rate have declined to 9 crashes per year at Route 114 and Route 133 and 14 crashes per year at Route 114 and Route 125. The typical manner of collision, consistent with the RSA, were angle collisions at the intersection of Route 114 with Route 133 and rear-end collisions at the intersection of Route 114 and Route 125. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 30 The TIA does not provide sight distance measurements or commitments for the proposed site driveway locations. The Applicant should provide this information. VAI Response: Sight lines have been reviewed at both the existing and proposed site driveway locations on both Route 114 and Route 125. In general, sight lines along both corridors are excellent, with greater than 425 feet of available sight distance provided to and from the driveway locations in both directions, though it is noted that an existing Bertucci's sign is currently located in the sight triangle for the proposed Route 114 driveway location. Based on sight distance criteria as defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the available sight distance meets the minimum sight distance requirements for a 50 mph travel speed, in excess of 35 mph speed limit on Route 125 and 30 mph speed limit on Route 114. The sight distance triangles provided on the updated site plans reflect the higher 50 mph design speed. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 31 TEC does not object to the conservative application of pass-by and internal capture trips and confirms that the application of such rates applied in the TIA would represent a conservative scenario. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr ®S Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development The Farglneerlag Corp, December 14, 2020 Page 10 of 13 VAI Response: VAI concurs that the use of a pass-by rate below the average rate suggested by the ITE as well as taking no credit for internal trips, as ITE practice recommends, results in a conservative projection of project impacts. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 32 The TIA indicates that the existing trips associated with Ethan Allen and the day spa use were subtracted from the projected volumes prior to application of trips associated with the urgent care, bank, and restaurant. These calculations were not included in the TIA. The Applicant should provide record of removal of these trips, the retention of Bertucci related trips, and documentation on how each trip total for existing uses was determined. VAI Response: The trips associated with the Ethan Allen and salon that were eliminated as part of the future Build condition analyses are based on observed peak hour traffic volumes to and from these uses. Additionally, the future Build condition volumes include the reallocation of existing Bertucci's trips to account for the elimination of the Route 114 driveway most proximate to the Bertucci's restaurant. Trip generation calculations are provided as an attachment to this memorandum. TEC Response: Through discussions, VAI confirmed with TEC that the volumes related to each use; including the Bertucci's, where collected separately by use. VAI has provided the data in the Appendix. Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 33 There are minor volume discrepancies between the No-Build, Trip Generation, and Build traffic volumes. An example is the Route 114 westbound in the AM condition where the Build through movement should be 998, not 997. These changes may be attributed to rounding errors in Excel worksheets. Please do a check of all volume calculations to ensure the validity of the analysis. VAI Response: VAI concurs that minor discrepancies on the order of one vehicle per hour were identified due to rounding. This minor level of variation would not result in any notable change to the findings of the TIA, with the identified traffic volumes still representing a conservative scenario due to the use of future 2040 horizon traffic volumes and the conservative nature of the trip generation methodology. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 34 The Applicant has provided no support information for trip distribution for the site over the study area with exception of the final percentages. The traffic volumes within the study area per roadway and direction changes significantly with the peak hours and throughout the day. At a minimum, the Applicant should provide calculations for the trip distribution to confirm the utilization of this trip distribution per intersection approach. VAIResponse: As a significant percentage of Project-related traffic will be pass-by in nature, or primarily local in nature due to the land uses proposed (coffee shop and bank), trip distribution patterns were developed based on a review of existing traffic patterns within the study area, specifically approach volumes on the critical intersection approaches that provide access to the site via Route 114, Route 125, and Route 133. During the critical weekday morning and Saturday midday peak hours, approach trip distribution patterns utilized T:\T0758\TO758.12\Docs\Letters\TO758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr _ 's _Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development December 14, 2020 The Engineering Corp Page 11 of 13 N11- in this assessment, based on the average of all three peak periods, were generally within 1 to 2 percent of the calculated average value. It is noted that during the weekday evening peak, traffic is more oriented in the westbound direction on Route 114 (40 percent calculated versus 30 percent utilized in the assessment). However, this deviation would result in only 4 more additional entering and exiting movements from this approach (with a corresponding reduction on the remaining approaches), which would not result in a notable change to projected traffic volumes at study area locations. It is also noted that 40 percent of the pass-by trips, which constitute more of the total site-generated trips than new trips, were assigned via Route 114 from the west. TEC Response: The Applicant has provided the distribution calculations which shows the trip distribution used in general conformance with the traffic volume data. Although some individual percentages by time of day do stray from the average percentage (no more than 10% -Route 114 WB PM vs. average), the overall trip impact of the project is low enough that the change in percentages would not result in any modification to trip projections by more than 1 trip on any one movement. Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 35 The comments as noted above may result in modifications to the results of the capacity and queue analysis and therefore TEC reserves the right to provide additional comments and improvement recommendations upon completion of the peer review comment responses. VAI Response: Comment Noted TEC Response: No further response required. Comment No. 36 The capacity and queue analysis analyze the signalized intersections using the Synchro Percentile Delay methodology instead of the industry standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 or 6th Edition methodology. Although TEC does not necessarily disagree with the usage of Synchro methodology, the Applicant should provide specific justification for its use over HCM, such as a specific parameter that is preventing the use of HCM methodology. VAI Response: The capacity analyses were reanalyzed utilizing the HCM 6th Edition methodology for both existing and future conditions, following the implementation of MassDOT improvements along the Route 114 corridor. It is noted that under existing conditions the HCM methodology it not supported at the intersection of Route 114 and Route 125 due to the phasing at this location, however all future year analyses reflect the HCM analysis methodology. The results of the revised capacity analyses are provided as an attachment to this document. As summarized, the overall conclusion of the TIA, that Project-related traffic increases are not expected to result in a notable impact to area traffic operations remains unchanged. It is noted that a lane designation error in the prior capacity analyses for northbound and southbound traffic on Route 133 has been corrected as part of the revised analyses. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 37 TEC notes that under MassDOT improvements, the intersection of Route 114 at Route 125 will continue to operate at similar conditions with and without the project. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr es Solutions . 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development December 14, 2020 ` . The EngrneertngCorp Page 12 of 13 The project is not expected to greatly impact operations at this location. TEC concurs with this assessment. VAI Response: Comment Noted TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 38 TEC notes that similar to Route 114 at Route 125, the intersection of Route 114 at Route 113 will continue to operate at similar conditions with and without the project. The Applicant should modify the Table 7 to show the actual delay and V/C ratio for the Route 133 NB approach in the weekday evening condition. VAI Response: As requested by TEC, the actual delay and V/C ratios for the Route 133 northbound approach, and all other intersection approaches, have been reported based on the updated HCM capacity analysis results. Updated capacity analysis worksheets are provided as an attachment to this document. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 39 Operations along the North Site Driveway at Route 125 are expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour (noted as LOS D in the weekday evening however this is mistyped and should read LOS F). Neither Tables 7 nor 8 reported expected queue length. The Applicant should revise the tables to include queue length. VAI Response: As requested by the TEC, the projected queue lengths at both the signalized intersections on Route 114 and on the unsignalized driveway approaches to both Route 114 and Route 125 are provided in the updated capacity analysis summary tables. As noted, the maximum projected queue lengths at all site driveway locations are predicted to extend approximately 1 to 2 vehicles during peak hours of Project-related traffic activity. TEC Response: Comment closed. No further response required. Comment No. 40 The TIA mentions a queuing analysis for the coffee/donut shop drive-through but provides no documentation on the projected queue length for the drive-up window. This is also the case for the on-site bank use, which is providing a drive-through teller window. More documentation for the drive-throughs should be provided by the Applicant. VAI Response: As part of prior permitting efforts, VAI has collected drive-through queue data at a number of coffee shops that provide a drive-through lane, which are provided as an attachment to this document. As noted, the average drive-through queue for to coffee shop with drive through ranged from 5 to 8 vehicles during the weekday morning peak hour, with 95t" percentile morning queues of approximately 8 to 13 vehicles. Similarly, for a Saturday the average queue ranged from 1 to 6 vehicles, with a corresponding 95th percentile queue of 3 to 11 vehicles. The proposed coffee shop drive- through has been designed to accommodate the 95th percentile queue. Based on VAI's experience with drive-through banks, on average approximately 42 percent of bank customers use the drive-through facility. In order to provide a conservative (high) assessment of drive-through facility use for the Project, a 50 percent drive-through facility utilization was assumed. Further, it was observed that average transaction times in the drive-through ATM facility are approximately 1.5 minutes per vehicle. T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr Qs Solutions 419-435 Andover Street— Proposed Commercial Development TEU December 14, 2020 The EnglneedngCorp Page 13 of 13 As presented in the TIA, it is expected that the bank component of the Project will generate the highest number of trips during the Saturday midday peak, when 45 total arrivals, 23 of which would be drive-through trips, are predicted. Assuming random arrivals and a service flow rate of 1.5 minutes per transaction during the hour results in a theoretical 95tn percentile vehicle queue of approximately four (4) vehicles, with an average queue of one (1) vehicle. A review of the site plan indicates that the bank drive-through facility can accommodate this level of queueing without impeding access to parking or internal circulation. TEC Response: VAI has provided a queue diagram on the current site plan depicting the queue availability for the coffee shop drive-thru which depicts space for fifteen (15) vehicles before conflicting with another drive aisle and thirteen (13) vehicles prior to the main entrance of the urgent care facility. TEC does accept the data provided indicating a 95th percentile queue of 13 vehicles from documented data within the Appendix. The raised island at the northerly entrance should prevent vehicles from stacking in the driveway and "cutting the line", forcing vehicles to enter the drive- through from the marked end on the south side of the urgent care. Although TEC is generally agreeable, the Applicant should provide consider reviewing nearby coffee shop queuing at the Starbucks along Route 114 2-miles to the north in Lawrence. Comment No. 41 The Applicant should continue to coordinate with MassDOT on off-site mitigation opportunities whether provided by the Applicant or incorporated in the Route 114 corridor project. VAI Response: The applicant has met with MassDOT and their design engineer to review the Route 114 corridor improvement project and has also provided the traffic projections and analyses associated with the project for review and inclusion in the future corridor improvement design as warranted. The proponent will continue to coordinate with MassDOT as part of the review of the Permit to Access State Highway application. TEC Response: Although coordination is ongoing, no further response required. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions concerning our comments at 978-794-1792.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TEC, Inc. "The Engineering Corporation" Peter F. Ellison, PE Samuel W. Gregorio, PE, PTOE, RSP, Civil Engineer Senior Design Engineer T:\T0758\T0758.12\Docs\Letters\T0758.12_Peer Review#2.docx Engineering rr ms Solutions TEC REVIEW SKETCH 12-11-2020 CURRENTLY PROVIDED ON PLAN TEC SKETCH OVERHANG INTO AISLE 18 13;9' NO OVERHANG INTO AISLE 15.6' DRIVE 18 DRIVE AISLE AISLE 16' I 16' 9 g° 60` 18' 20.1' JOHNSON& Mark B. Johnson(MA,NH,DC) T T C Donald F.Borenstein(MA,MD,NH) ATTORNEYS AT LAW Gregory R. Richard(MA,NH) Kathleen M. Heyer(MA,NH) 12 Chestnut Street Thomas D. Orr(MA) Andover,MA 0 1810-3 706 Gordon T.Glass(ME,MA) Tel: 978-475-4488 Fax: 978-475-6703 Of Counsel www.jbllclaw.com Robert W. Lavoie(MA,NH) mark@jbllclaw.com Paralegals Karen L. Bussell Lianne Patenaude Ellen M. Melvin Tina M. Wilson December 28, 2020 By FedEx Overnight Delivery And Email—jenrioht(&.Eortlzandovermao-ov Jean Enright, Planning Director Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 419-435 Andover Street Dear Jean: I believe there are four open comments in the final TEC letter which I have addressed below. I have reprinted the original comment, the VAI response and the final TEC response along with my further comment. Comment No. 7 The off-street parking dimensional requirements note that pavement width for one- way aisles is 16-feet and two-way aisles is 25-feet. (Section 195-8.5.A.). • The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 is noted as 9.1-feet. ® The drive aisle circulating Bertucci's is noted as 20-feet (understanding that this is partially an existing condition). According to Section 8.5.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board. VAI Response: The width of the bank drive-through aisle adjacent to Route 114 has been increased to 11 feet as shown on the revised Site Plans included with this response. This width has been deemed sufficient for this layout and use as shown by the provided turning exhibits. No work or changes are proposed within the majority of the Jean Enright, Planning Director December 28, 2020 Page 2 Bertucci's restaurant parking lot in order to allow them to remain operational. Relief is requested as required for these dimensions. TEC Response: TEC concurs that appropriate turning exhibits have been provided. Final approval of reduction of drive aisle widths is at the discretion of the Planning Board. Further Comment: The Planning Board has the authority to reduce the aisle widths pursuant to § 195-8.8(D)(2), provided that the design is prepared by certified professional engineer, architect or landscape architect. For the proposed project the parking lot design has been certified by a professional engineer. TEC has agreed that the design shows appropriate aisle width. The Applicant believes that it has met the requirements for the Board to grant a waiver from the aisle widths to permit development as shown on the plans. Comment No. 11 Along the northerly property line, (abutting map 24, lot 33), two different size angled parking spaces are shown. The Site Plans should clearly label the dimensions of all parking spaces. The size of these spaces also impacts the width of the proposed drive aisle, currently shown as 16-feet. VAI Response:Additional dimensions have been added to the parking spaces which have consistent depth,width and angle. TEC Response:Six angled spaces along the northern property line(abutting map 24, lot 33) are drawn with a depth of 20-feet. Eight angled spaces along the northern property line are drawn with a depth of 18-feet. TEC assumes this is a drafting error and all spaces are meant to be drawn with a depth of 18-feet. This minor error could be addressed as a condition of approval at the discretion of the Planning Board. Further Comment The Rev 2 Proposed Site Plan dated 1212112020 addresses this comment. Comment No. 12TEC believes that the intent of the Zoning Bylaw is to provide a stall depth of 18- feet for all angled parking. For 60-degree angle parking, TEC believes that the dimension between the drive aisle and curb line (measured perpendicular) should be 20-feet in order to accomplish an 18- foot depth. According to Section 8.5.A., these requirements may be modified at the discretion of the Planning Board. Jean Enright, Planning Director December 28, 2020 Page 3 VAI Response: The angled parking spaces at the site are designed and dimensioned to be 18.0 feet in depth,angled at 60-degrees, as was interpreted to be required by the Zoning Bylaws. If TEC's interpretation is correct, the applicant would request relief for the parking spaces as proposed. Since the angled spaces are located along 16-foot-wide one-way drive aisles, alongside a 12-foot drive-through lane, there should be ample width for parking and vehicular access. This allows the project to maximize the width of the landscape buffers. TEC Response: The Planning Board should confirm if relief is required or if the parking spaces meet the Bylaw as drawn. TEC has provided a sketch attached to this letter as clarification. It should be noted that 24 total angled parking spaces are provided. All 24 spaces are defined at the front by a vertical concrete curb that will allow most vehicles to overhang the curb providing additional depth. Further Comment: If the Board interprets the Bylaw as TEC has outlined, the Applicant requests that a waiver be granted from the requirements to permit the parking spaces as proposed. There is ample space for both parked cars and vehicular access through the drive aisle and the drive-through lane. Additionally, the curbing as proposed will allow most vehicles to overhang the curb providing additional depth, as noted by TEC. The Applicant's engineer has certified that the proposed design is sufficient to meet the parking and on-site traffic requirements. Comment No. 13TEC understands that much of the existing parking around Bertucci's is narrower than current Town zoning standards. The Applicant should consider providing an alternative that would redesign much of these spaces as standard while distributing other compact spaces to other locations on the site. This alternative may reduce the overall number of spaces provided. These alternatives should be presented for review by the Planning Board, VAI Response:The intent is to minimize impacts to the existing Bertucci's restaurant and within the associated parking lot as part of the proposed project. As noted by TEC, adjustments to the existing parking lot would reduce the number of parking spaces and impact the landscape in this area. The restaurant has experienced a challenging year during the pandemic, and the hope is to allow their operations to continue as much as possible throughout the duration of construction on-site, by Jean Enright, Planning Director December 28, 2020 Page 4 minimizing the limit of work. For these reasons, the parking spaces, drive aisles and ADA access is proposed to remain as existing and the applicant would request any necessary relief. TEC Response: The Applicant has not presented any alternatives. The Planning Board should determine if alternatives would provide any benefit for their review. Further Comment: The Applicant believes that the proposed design meets the objectives and goals of the Bylaw. The Applicant proposes to retain the existing parking around Bertucci's in an attempt to minimize disruption to the site and to Bertucci's business. The parking in this configuration has worked for a number of years and has not created conflicts or safety issues. To the extent a waiver from the parking requirements is necessary to permit the existing compact spaces and drive aisle dimensions to continue, the Applicant has requested the same from the Board. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly Yours, Johnson& Borenstein, LLC ark Johnson MBJ—klb