Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFull Environmental Assessment Form/Traffic Impact & Access Analysis FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM/ TRAFFIC IMPACT & ACCESS ANALYSIS Rye Brook Firehouse Rye Brook, New York Prepared for: Village of Rye Brook Prepared by: FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Rye, New York • Fairfield, Connecticut June 2002 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David H. Stolman, AICP,PP Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Michael A. Galante Rye, New York and Fairfield, Connecticut Joanne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Daniel K. Wery, AICP Rye, New York 10580 David J. Portman,FAIcP (914) 967-6540 • FAX (914) 967-6615 Howard 1. Reynolds, PE June 7, 2002 Mr. Christopher J. Bradbury, Village Administrator Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Mr. Bradbury: We are pleased to submit this report which includes the Full Environmental Assessment Form and addresses traffic and access considerations related to the planned new firehouse, to be located along the westerly side of King Street and immediately north of the Village Hall in Rye Brook, New York. This report includes a detailed analysis of traffic for existing, background and combined conditions on King Street and nearby intersections. The analysis addresses typical weekday morning and afternoon commuter peak hours. Results of the analysis show intersections along King Street, southeast of the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway interchange, operate at acceptable levels during these peak hours under current conditions. However, intersections at the Parkway interchange show capacity deficiencies for motorists entering from side roads onto King Street. Additional traffic from other planned developments, generally north of the Parkway interchange and north of Anderson Hill Road will add a substantial level of traffic, which will result in additional capacity delays in the Study Area. The firehouse will generate a minimal amount of traffic during fire emergencies; however, there will short-term impacts and delays when emergency vehicles exit the facility onto King Street. It is recommended the Village, in conjunction with the New York State Department of Transportation, install appropriate warning signs on King Street in the immediate vicinity of the firehouse access drive to alert motorists during emergencies. Appropriate NYSDOT approved signing should be used for both approaches to the access drive. Connecticut Hudson Valley Long Island email@fpclark.com (203)255-3100 (845)297-6056 (516) 364-4544 www.fpciark.com FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. P Ian ning/Development/Environ men t/Transportation Mr. Christopher J. Bradbury, Village Administrator Page 2 June 7, 2002 We appreciate the opportunity to assist in evaluating potential impact from the planned firehouse. Sincerely, Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President Enclosures j:\docs2\500\rye2-040.mag.crg.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Full Environmental Assessment Form INTRODUCTION 1 Project Description 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 Roadways 2 Traffic Volumes 3 Accident History 4 Capacity Analysis Procedures 4 Capacity Analysis Results 7 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 9 Background Traffic Projections 9 Projected Firehouse Traffic 9 Percent Distribution of Emergency Vehicles 10 Combined Traffic Volumes 10 Capacity Analysis Results 10 Site Access 11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 12 Mitigation 12 LIST OF TABLES FOLLOWS PAGE 1. 2002 Existing Two-Way Volumes - Peak Hours 3 2. Accident Summary- King Street 4 3. Level of Service Summary- Peak Hours 8 4. Non-Site-Generated Traffic - Peak Hours 9 5. Site-Generated Traffic - Peak Hours 10 6. Level of Service Summary - Peak Hours 11 LIST OF FIGURES FOLLOWS PAGE 1. Site Location 3 2. Current Street System Characteristics 3 3. 2002 Existing Traffic Volumes - Weekday Morning Peak Hour(7:45-8:45 AM) 3 4. 2002 Existing Traffic Volumes - Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour(5:00-6:00 PM) 3 5. Non-Site Generated Traffic Volumes - Morning Peak Hour 9 6. Non-Site Generated Traffic Volumes - Afternoon Peak Hour 9 7. 2004 Background Traffic Volumes - Weekday Morning Peak Hour 9 8. 2004 Background Traffic Volumes - Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour 9 9. Site-Generated Traffic Volumes - Peak Hours 10 10. 2004 Combined Traffic Volumes - Morning Peak Hour 10 11. 2004 Combined Traffic Volumes - Afternoon Peak Hour 10 j:\docs2\800\ryefirehousetoc.doc 14-16-2(9/95)-7c SEQR 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ■ Part 1 IN Part 2 ❑ Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonable determined by the lead agency that: ■ A. The Project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 has been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Rye Brook Firehouse Name of Action Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Francis L. Filipowski Mayor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Responsible Officer S77) 1 Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signatu rep differ nt from responsible officer) Date 1 PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Rye Brook Firehouse LOCATION OF ACTION(include Street Address, Municipality and County) 940 King Street, Rye Brook, Westchester County, New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Village of Rye Brook (914) 939-1121 ADDRESS 938 King Street CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Village of Rye Brook NY 10573 NAME OF OWNER(if different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Demolition of existing structures, site grading, construction of a new Firehouse and associated access drives, parking area, lighting, landscaping, and related site development activities. Please Complete Each Question -Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑ Urban ❑Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential (suburban) ❑ Rural (non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ■Other prior residential property now Village-owned 2. Total acreage of project area: 0.98 acres: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Article 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, Buildings and Other Paved Surfaces 0.18 acres 0.7 _ acres Other (Indicate type) 0.7 acres 0.18 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? PnB PnC a. Soil drainage ❑ Well drained % of site ■ Moderately well drained 100 % of site ❑ Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370) 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ❑ Yes ■ No a. What is depth to bedrock? 6-8 (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ■ 0-10% 90 % ■ 10-15% 10 % ❑ 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ❑ Yes ■ No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑ Yes ■ No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 10+ (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? ❑ Yes ■ No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ❑Yes ■ No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑ Yes ■ No According to Site Investigation Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ❑ Yes ■ No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑ Yes ■ No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name None b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ■ Yes ❑ No a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ■ Yes ❑ No b. If yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑ Yes ■ No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Market Law, Article 25-AA Section 303 and 304? ❑ Yes ■ No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑ Yes ■ No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste? ❑ Yes ■ No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 0.98 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed 0.98 acres initially; 0.98 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles N.A. (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N.A. % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 5 ; proposed 30 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour see traffic study (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 38 height; 90 width; 110 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 125 ft. 3 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? to be determined ton/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ■ N.A. a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ■ Yes ❑ No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ■ Yes ❑ No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers)will be removed from site? 0.7 acres. 5. Will any mature forest(over 100 years old)or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? OYes ■ No 6. If single phased project: Anticipated period of construction 8-10 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? O Yes ■ No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ■ Yes ❑ No If yes, explain relocation of fire equipment to new fire house 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ■ No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharges 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ■ No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ■ No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ❑ Yes ■ No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ■ Yes ❑ No a. If yes, what is the amount per month to be determined tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ■ Yes O No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any waste not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑ Yes ■ No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑ Yes ■ No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑ Yes ■ No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day?) O Yes ■ No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑ Yes ■ No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ■ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate type(s) Electricity, Heating fuel 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N.A. gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day to be determined gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ■ Yes ❑ No If yes, explain Local Funding 4 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board ■ Yes ❑ No Site Plan City, Town, Village Planning Board ■ Yes ❑ No Referral City, Town, Zoning Board ❑ Yes ■ No City, County Health Department ❑ Yes ■ No Other Local Agencies ❑ Yes ■ No Other Regional Agencies ■ Yes ❑ No County Referral State Agencies ■ Yes ❑ No NYSDOT Permit Federal Agencies ❑ Yes ■ No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, indicate decision required: ❑ zoning amendment ❑ zoning variance ❑ special use permit ❑ subdivision ❑ site plan ❑ new/revision of master plan ❑ resource management plan ❑ other. 2. What is the zoning classifications) of the site? R-15 Residential 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 1 Single-Family Residential Parcel 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N.A. 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N.A. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ■ Yes ❑ No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? Residential Municipal School Office Building State Parkway (Hutchinson River Parkway) 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? ■ Yes ❑ No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N.A. a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorizations) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑ Yes ■ No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ❑ Yes ■ No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑ Yes ■ No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑Yes ❑ No 'a traffic study has been prepared for the project D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Revised June 6, 2002 Applicant/Sp a David S vin a RLA AICP Date January 18 2002 Senior Associate/Planning/Environment Signature Title Frederick P. Clark Associates Rye New York If the action is in the Coastal Area,a d you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 Part 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identify that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in Part 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The responses are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality. will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. :In identifying impacts, consider long term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ❑ NO ■ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 • ❑ DYES ❑ NO foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts removal of material • ❑ DYES ❑ NO 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) ■ NO ❑ YES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 6 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON WATER Impact Impact Project Change 3. Will proposed action affect body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body. of water? IN NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 7 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑]YES ❑ NO heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: __ _ ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ■ NO ❑ YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ DYES ONO or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns,whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project Components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ OYES ❑ NO screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12.Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ■ NO ❑ YES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO Other impacts: ❑ ❑ OYES ❑ NO IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? ■ NO ❑YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO resource? • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 9 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Impact Impact Project Change 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: a traffic study has been prepared ■ ❑ DYES ❑ NO IMPACT ON ENERGY 16.Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ DYES. ❑ NO • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18.Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action may result in the burial of"hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: 10 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR Impact Impact Project Change NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? ■ NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. El ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑YES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.). • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ DYES ❑ NO 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ■ NO ❑ YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 11 Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Potential Impacts Summary: Impact on Land: The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not significantly alter the topography of the site. There are no unusual or unique landforms on the site. Impact on Water: The project will involve an increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared in accordance with any applicable requirements. Impact on Air, Plants and Animals, Agricultural Resources: The proposed development will not have any significant impacts on such resources. There are no agricultural resources or rare or endangered species on or contiguous to the site. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: The proposed development is compatible with existing development in the area. The proposed building will be designed and the site will be landscaped to be residential in character. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources: The proposed development is not expected to have any impacts on any historic or archaeological resources. Impact on Open Space and Recreation, Critical Environmental Areas: There will be no impacts to existing open space or recreation areas or any critical environmental areas. Impact on Transportation: The proposed development is not expected to generate significant additional vehicle trips during peak hour. A traffic study has been prepared. Impact on Energy, Noise and Odors, Public Health: The proposed development is not expected to have any significant impacts on energy supply, noise or odor, or any public health issues. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood: The development is not expected to have any significant negative impact on community character or growth. The design and operation of the new Firehouse is not expected to generate any significant environmental impacts. Impacts associated with the construction of the new Firehouse are either considered unavoidable (noise) or will be effectively mitigated through the proper design, implementation, and maintenance of industry standard sediment and erosion control measures and the utilization of best management practices. j:\docs2\500\rye brook\village projects\firehouse\538.000.firehouse.eaf.dsk.doc 12 INTRODUCTION This traffic report provides a detailed analysis of current roadway and intersection conditions near the subject property on King Street. It includes a detailed analysis of traffic for existing, background and combined conditions at nearby intersections along King Street, including the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway interchange intersections. The subject property is located along the westerly side of King Street and immediately north of the Village Hall. Although a detailed site plan has not been prepared at this time, it is anticipated that an exclusive access drive will be constructed to serve the firehouse. Project Description The Village of Rye Brook plans to construct a firehouse on a parcel of land, which currently is occupied by a residential home, on the westerly side of King Street and immediately north of the Village Hall in the Village of Rye Brook, New York. Access is planned directly to King Street via an exclusive access drive. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section of the report describes field surveys, existing traffic conditions, capacity analysis procedures and results of the analysis of area roadways and key intersections. In addition, this section describes accident history. Roadways The subject property is located on King Street between Village Hall and the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway interchange. King Street is a two-way, State-maintained roadway, designated Route 120A, located along the New York/Connecticut State line. In the vicinity of this site it is a two-lane roadway. Southeast of the subject property, King Street is maintained as a two-lane roadway with exclusive turning lanes at the Arbor Drive signalized intersection and an exclusive left- turn lane from King Street to Glenville Road opposite the Blind Brook Middle School/High School signalized intersection. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) recently upgraded this section of King Street to include the exclusive turning lanes at Glenville Road/school driveway and also upgraded the traffic signal to accommodate the relocated access drive to the school. Northwest of the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway interchange, King Street continues as a wide two-lane, State-maintained roadway. King Street provides full access to the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway via direct ramps and/or Glen Ridge Road and North Ridge Street. Other than the signalized intersections on King Street at Arbor Drive and Glenville Road school access drive, all other intersections in the area are controlled with STOP signs on the minor side street approaches. In the immediate vicinity of the Parkway interchange, King Street provides two travel lanes in each direction between North Ridge Street and the Parkway northbound off-ramp. The posted speed limit on this roadway is 40 miles per hour. North Ridge Street is a two-lane, County-maintained roadway beginning at King Street and traversing the Village of Rye Brook and terminating to the south at the City of 2 Rye/Rye Brook Town/Village line. Figure 1 shows the subject property's location within the Village and Figure 2 shows current street system characteristics, as described above. Traffic Volumes To develop base line traffic conditions for area roadways, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. conducted manual traffic volume surveys on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 and Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at the following intersections along King Street: • North Ridge Street/Merritt Parkway southbound on/off-ramps; • Glen Ridge Road; • Hutchinson River Parkway northbound off-ramp; • Shady Lane; • Village Hall access drive; • Arbor Drive; • School entrance drive; and, • Glenville Road/school access drive. Field surveys were conducted from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 2:00 to 6:00 PM at each of the intersections noted above. Peak hour volumes (highest volumes recorded during a 60-minute period) were identified for each of the intersections in the Study Area for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The morning peak hour volumes were identified as occurring from 7:45 to 8:45 AM and the afternoon peak hour volumes were identified as occurring from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Figures 3 and 4 show peak hour volumes by turning movement for each of the intersections noted above for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. For comparison purposes, the recorded two-way volumes on King Street range from 1,148 to 1,712 vehicles during the morning peak hour. During the afternoon peak hour, the two-way volumes recorded on King Street were 1,207 to 1,650 vehicles. Table 1 shows a more detailed breakdown. 3 aOCAA// i L •L Q a �• �� 9yujW Glenville �� �, PS�� ROq p S10 o°dr i �9t �o o �-' Lai Lai l O p a 9L � VAR FA�R< 4' �S c `rJ EQUR7 a � o� A� O ►ne q OReNCe RYE BROOK OQ .�� c� 9� �ENA V*. A oo FIREHOUSE 4V, G t O � GUIL m LJ ES Q 0Y Y ti� S(eFpY O a a \ \\ C g, �RpAd �OP� 815�\,\ �1pf`P "9d 'POC,FINC �'rQ\. �jY C R1D�'` 1J� �� •� �+ GSR UR � 2 rl��Py !!t"\ P 15 9��O Gam'' Q ��^ °�• od\ ORIOLE a� QO t^� GOB 9�Oy P� 9R1 WOOD ROAD N• MEADOW BYRAM �0 9-% <q�� fdCF�ood CIRCLE ,� �►510 E DRNECly4O D r�P"v<959 dO�'� $ Pd `GT f'Oc ,4i eVA D �J�� yFL�ti CROSS o SITE LOCATION WAY l� RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE OAD NG WOOD T S Rl°ce Rye Brook, New York R STR o WINDI E'F RrL� DR1vE v,A �� FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PGV'F'R ,o�'py 9 yC� Plonnlnq/Dowlopment/Emironment/ironpor flon Not to Seale rn« 368-oaeal i OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND �0 ON-RAMP SOUTHBOUND >- ON-RAMP o 3 NORTHBOUND a OFF-RAMP R NORTHBOUND ix- R � 0 a rn R Y a ON-RAMP *_ NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND R� C ON-RAMP o SOUTHBOUND O �-► ST pQ OFF-RAMP 2' NORTHBOUND E— W W cc Q: RYE BROOK W FIREHOUSE ,\�,���" �,-.► �2 Cr 3� 4o�iOti 0 00� s Cl Z P� � o Q CURRENT STREET SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS LEGEND --r TRAFFIC LANE RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE C TRAFFIC SIGNAL Rye Brook, New York O STOP SIGN 00 MPH SPEED LIMIT FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Envlronment/Transportation Not to Scale File. 868-008flg2 OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND ao \ R_46 �1 ON—RAMP �s SOUTHBOUND > ON—RAMP �� jti�►� 3 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP ,r,o �1� NORTHBOUND c� 3 ix- 1* \ �09tJ a ON-RAMP ti^9 NORTHBOUND 56 / R//qs OFF-RAMP ryo� y SOUTHBOUND ,00�� �9os N 'Fi ti ssk '90 ON-RAMP o SOUTH BOUND - ;j,► S oQ OFF-RAMP �J a T�� NORTHBOUND RYE BROOK �P�� so��' 'q '9 FIREHOUSE �61 s►ti N Z o to QQ h � 2� Ov n ryh U _ Q 2002 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR (7:45 — 8:45 AM) Note: Field Surveys conducted on RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE Tuesday, March 19, and Rye Brook, New York Wednesday, April 10, 2002. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Tronsportation Z Not to Scale Fllr 868-008ftg3 J OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND 'Fi 0 �tip, SOP e, � k—,00 ON-RAMP �s SOUTHBOUND > ON-RAMP NORTHBOUND G C" �y�0 OFF-RAMP NORTHBOUND ' >Je����`J, � 4i2 oVO 3 J h 0 Q 3 0 JJ � D J `fl aQ ON-RAMP NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND 9° N ,F� ON-RAMP R + p SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP Or NORTHBOUND O� se9 Fl 0 RYE BROOK �P'� s�L ��9°? N FIREHOUSE ���' `�3� J 1. 2 1 � Z = 3 0;?� ►tee Q 2002 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR (5:00 — 6:00 PM) Note: Field Surveys conducted on RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE Tuesday, March 19, and Rye Brook, New York Wednesday, April 10, 2002. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation /t Not to Scale File 868-008fig4 L.� Table 1 2002 EXISTING TWO-WAY VOLUMES - PEAK HOURS Rye Brook Firehouse Rye Brook, New York VEHICLES Weekday Weekday ROADWAY SEGMENT Morning Afternoon King Street, south of Glenville Road/School Drive 1,183 1,207 King Street, north of Glenville Road/School Drive 1,492 1,523 King Street, south of Arbors Drive 1,609 1,557 King Street, north of Arbors Drive 1,685 1,560 King Street, south of Village Hall Drive 1,678 1,575 King Street, north of Village Hall Drive 1,677 1,581 King Street, south of Shady Lane 1,685 1,575 King Street, north of Shady Lane 1,640 1,567 King Street, south of NB ramps/Glen Ridge Road 1,640 1,567 King Street, north of NB ramps/Glen Ridge Road 1,461 1,645 King Street, south of SB ramps/N. Ridge Street 1,712 1,650 King Street, north of SB ramps/N. Ridge Street 1,148 1,398 Note: 2002 volumes are based on field surveys conducted on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 and Wednesday, April 10, 2002. Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. j:\docs2\800\rye2-002.mes.crg.doc Accident History Accident history was obtained from the Village of Rye Brook Police Department for over a three-year period beginning on January 1, 1999 through March 31, 2002. Accident data was obtained for area roadways within the Study Area, including King Street. During the 39-month period, there were 60 reported accidents in the Study Area and at the intersections included in this analysis. Furthermore, 20 accidents involved injuries. This evaluation of the accident history determined that 38 accidents involved rear-end collisions, 3 accidents involved overtaking, 1 accident involved a fixed-object, 10 accidents involved right angles, 5 accidents involved left-turns, and 2 accidents involved moving objects in the road. A further review of the accident history showed that 27 accidents occurred during wet/snow road conditions. An overview evaluation of the probable cause of these accidents was typically identified as failure to grant right-of-way, following too close, driver inattention, slippery pavement, alcohol-related, and backing unsafely. Table 2 shows a more detailed breakdown of accidents within the Study Area. Capacity Analysis Procedures Procedures have been established by the Transportation Research Board through which roadway segments and intersections can be tested to determine their ability to accommodate traffic volumes. These procedures are described in this section. Two methods of analysis are needed to evaluate intersections. These methods are based on procedures found in the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report No. 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 update) and are described below. Signalized Intersections - Capacity at signalized intersections is defined for each lane group. Lane group capacity is the maximum hourly rate at which vehicles may pass through the intersection under prevailing traffic, roadway, and signalization conditions. The flow rate is generally measured or projected for a 15-minute peak period, and capacity is stated in vehicles per hour. 4 A 3 3 3 3 3 3 ¢ o 0 0 0 0 0 LL1 N N vc N N y ti L t t L L L y Q a v a w e o o —°, 0 0 0 0 0 c v im—, —0 u m ca a o d o 0 0 0 0 0 o T T T T 00 N o Oo d c as > > > > > > o a A aci cL a U. U. Lc°. LL. E^ U. U Li Li U. LL. Li trc0. a. U.. U. z 00 O wc c 00 v E v 'Or_e c c 0 c 0 ¢ cv cE cV m ca m `cd m e0 c7 `� 0 0o 00 0o 00 C O cc y M M m v a> u U U a> > w O 1a1 a oG rY is a: o: oG 0� 1w 1ix j a 1a Ia F- o O O o O wl vn 00 0 — W) N — to c', In r o V1 N M N ,f !' M r O — t N C '7� M — 00 V1 to 00 00 en 00 oo cn 'n h r 00 00 0% V) 00 t- a m m _ T T vFi LQLt `o e`a a `O a e `0 c e e 0 o v d o o °c u O oOn �- v � z cao- go 00 F �a 3 3 3 3 a 3 a o a a a o a a a 3 a 3 3 a 3 a z o � o U U -j ¢ O x > Wz_ > N N N N N N N N N M N N N V1 N N N N N N N N w ,7 z 0 O O O O O O O O O O e{ — O O O M LO D\ a, cs ON ON ON a\ CN G\ C% O+ C% O O C` a, C\ c� a\ c� D\ ,� ON rri c� � y C+ c, T N c+ O vi OO Q O 'C en y � 'C r � t^ � � +n C Z � 1� � � N \ � � - ry � �` � � C° N d � G1 tb � M ry 7 N 'C N id c N 00 7 N y� c N M ,c N 7 �O c 7 M id :7 �. M F" \V f"' t� 3 T G •- E" 00 VI tVco O O O 0 0 0 O N N v 0 L d c c > > > a 04 n: of of o: 0 0 v 0 v an > C13u a� u v v N v Q: a' Q; 72 T T Q c -v v o` o o >c >c >>c c c c e C c ° � Q 00 cLi� vLi Q Q Q U C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 �7 z Z z z Z C7 u � M co cC id cO cv ce io id i0 c0 ca i7 N id co ea id io _ ea in 4. y vz 6J N N 6J N L N N 6! L N N N d 4J 00 o c (n cn V) En in V) cn V) Ln Vn cn V) V) 0q 0o 0o 0o 0o 00 00 00 00 00 0o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 � e c e c c c _ c c c c c c c c c c c 00 00 c Y x x Y rn rn m N 3 3 3 3 U a� s s s o N y W ❑ c C O ?0 CO : ° v CL C U U " G O rU„ U O C bD OD 00to COro Y y i0 oD vOi O 7 O O O e e 3 a�i c v vtoo o d �a� c > co > y .m .� .m A A U. a A [i v� a C1 L" [r. LL. U. F coo wa� a� O W A00 a Id n. u vv ao0o O0 � Lv ai ai aiV c cc v� a U CO � 4)i v Q a x x a a ci rx of ri r� ci O oG a oc a O rx ct x W F- o YC14 O 0 M tn v" v In V � et M . N In 00 00 00 00 N O\ 1- N M Q\ W W c7 cad' cLV 7 7 �cd' C c� �cd' •C C O aj das d N N U O U 3 x Ao N QF � Op F � U p A 3 3 A 3 A A 3 3 A A A I w ° U 20 W > > Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CA W z O O O N O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O C NO O N N �O_ O M c6 0 -6 C O� � M NOOC ^ ` C U O \ v3 � 3 � � �, F- oF- oFoocn - � :=, u. � FE ;6 a-, ICE � z s Z ao' ao' `n `n `n41 o 0 0 0 0 0 0mo > > > > > n to to v o 000 to y tx D: a oC �° C] �..' . 'C . > > > y o UO a ¢ ¢ Q Q 7Cv Cv7 v7 v Czzzz b v ti Q v C7 C7 C7 C7 no c .7 d C 0 co o a7 0 0 o V o 0 7 M a> a� � U u cu y -- L L L i L L En �n In � � � � CA � � �n v� 00 00 00 00 0o en o0 00 00 00 00 00 0n o0 0o 00 00 00 w 0o to c c t c g e c e e c 0 t c v_ .E e_ c c c e_ c e S s x k 2 2 2 T T T T T 3 3 3 3 3 ca U o 0 o c o on o en oo ao 0 0 00 o T c Oto w co o to o 00 0 o O c° ° o °q `a y c c c oo c c .. c c c_ to c a c 3 23 E 3 c O O > '> O 7 O 7 > > j j 7 O Y > c co O O O cO O c0 ca O �- t u. ❑. A L" Ll.. u. u. U. cr A A is LL m A U LL, z ro O m o v u] A v v c v v 0 to v v 0 v Y a c c e c E c E U U 00co c`a ` a a a: a � .- rx x o nL. a Q , In. a a a a a. N a a a a F vl o O M to kn O\ O In O In M O I�t In Vl V O kn N M O N O N N C' N l0 Ol M Ul f- rn vl W FT T 3 ra ,c � ca ca C ca 3 c`a cv ca ro cc � ca cv �a o: U U U W. U U U U U U U U U U d c � z Qo N a N Q Q U U v 3 3 A A 3 A v� Ca 3 A Ll A A A v� A cq SO O N N N — N N N N N N N N N N N M t U cl R � O Q � O O O N y N cCa w N 'C Nl •C C N h �. O C O O C N y 0 N vi \n. C A Q 7 N U N 7 O (� 7 N ,e7 Ic O _ O ,C N ca 7 O N 7 F n 3v� cnc� 3 — Folf- o+ z — k. 00 'n En 'AF—m f4 F — ^ o O u a� b O O w z A A A A o0 00 0o 0o ao >> to A — F- C4 p Y v a s a a a z z z z z 0 o 0 -0v d S U v o v v v o v v v v v v Z to —° O c c c c c c �r c c c c c ca U y ..] m ca ca ca co ca ca ca ca ca ca ca is co is — � In V] (n Cn cn Cn N y 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 0o 00 00 00 c c c c c c c -G Traffic conditions include volumes on each approach, the distribution of vehicles by movement (left, through, right), the vehicle type distribution within each movement, the location and use of bus stops within the intersection area, pedestrian crossing flows, and parking movements within the intersection area. Roadway conditions include the basic geometry of the intersection, including the number and width of lanes, grades, and lane-use allocations (including parking lanes). Signalization conditions include a full definition of the signal phasing, timing, type of control, and signal progression on each approach. Level of Service for a signalized intersection is defined in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for each lane group and approach and for the intersection as a whole during a peak 15-minute period during a peak 1-hour period. Six Levels of Service from A to F have been established as measures of vehicle delay. These levels and their related delay terms are as follows: I CONTROL DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE (SECONDS PER VEHICLE) A < 10.0 g 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F more than 80.0 More specific definitions of the six levels are best given by the Highway Capacity Manual: Level of Service A - describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than or equal to 10.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most 5 vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delays. Level of Service B - describes operations with delays in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level of Service A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C - describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or short cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D - describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or high volume to capacity (V/Q ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E - describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 6 Unsignalized Intersections — Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Chapter 17, analyzes the capacity and level of service of two-way STOP-controlled (TWSC) and all-way STOP- controlled (AWSC) intersections. Level of service (LOS) for a TWSC intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from the time a vehicle stops at the end of the queue to the time the vehicle departs from the STOP line. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Control delay per vehicle for AWSC is computed for each lane and each approach. The approach delay is the weighted average of the delay on each lane and the intersection delay is the weighted average of the delay on each approach. CONTROL DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE (SECONDS PER VEHICLE) A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 F more than 50.0 Capacity Analysis Results Results of the capacity analysis for each of the intersections included in the Study Area show that this section of King Street at Glenville Road/school access drive operates at an overall Level of Service "C" and "D" during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The results of the analysis for the signalized intersection of King Street at Arbor Drive show it operates at an overall Level of Service "B" and "A" during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The unsignalized intersection at Village Hall currently operating at a Level of Service "C" or better during the morning peak hour and Level of Service "D" or better 7 during the afternoon peak hour. Typically, at unsignalized intersections along King Street the side street approaches operate at lower levels of service than on King Street. The unsignalized intersection of King Street at Shady Lane shows vehicle movements from Shady Lane operating at a Level of Service "F" and "E" during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. However, the southbound left-turn movement into Shady Lane operates at Level of Service "B" during both peak hours. The Hutchinson River Parkway northbound off-ramp operates with the vehicular movements from the off-ramp operating at Level of Service "E" and "D" during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The Glen Ridge Road approach to King Street, which is controlled with a STOP sign, operates at a Level of Service "C" for the Glen Ridge Road approach during both peak hours and Level of Service "B" and "C" during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively, for the southbound approach movement which includes the left-turn movement. The North Ridge Street approach to King Street operates at Level of Service "E" during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. At the Merritt Parkway southbound off-ramp/North Ridge Street intersection, the off-ramp operates at Level of Service "F" during both peak hours and the northbound left-turn/through movement operates at Level of Service "A" and "B" during the same peak hours noted above. The King Street southbound off-ramp from the Merritt Parkway operates at Level of Service "B" during both peak hours. Table 3 shows the results of the analysis for each intersection in more detail. 8 Table 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-PEAK HOURS Rye Brook Firehouse Rye Brook,New York 2002 EXISTING CONDITIONS CONTROL LANE GROUP/ INTERSECTION TYPE MOVEMENT Morning Afternoon King Street at Glenville Signal EB L C/21.8 C/20.6 Road/School Drive TR C/20.8 C/20.1 WB LT D/35.9 D/36.9 R D/41.0 E/68.8 NB L B/17.0 B/18.0 TR D/43.3 D/49.3 SB L C/24.6 C/21.3 TR B/14.9 B/13.9 Overall C/31.9 D/40.9 King Street at Arbors Drive Signal EB L D/36.7 C/34.2 R C/35.0 C/35.0 NB L A/1.2 A/1.0 T A/3.7 A/2.8 SB T B/15.9 B/10.2 R A/6.3 A/6.0 Overall B/11.2 A/6.5 King Street at Village Hall STOP EB LR C/18.3 D/30.0 Drive NB LT A/9.5 A/8.9 King Street at Shady Lane STOP WB LR F/130.2 E/38.2 SB LT B/10.2 B/10.3 King Street at Hutchinson STOP EB LR E/45.1 D/27.7 River Parkway NB Rams NB LT A/8.6 A/8.7 King Street at Glen Ridge STOP WB LR C/21.0 C/21.1 Road SB LT B/14.2 C/16.1 King Street EB of N. Ridge STOP EB LR E/40.4 F/76.5 Street King Street at Merritt STOP WB LR F/254.6 F/623.7 Parkway SB Off-Ramp/N. NB LT A/9.5 B/10.5 Ride Street King Street at Merritt STOP WB R B/12.3 B/13.7 Parkway SB Off-Ram King Street at Firehouse STOP WB LR -- -- Drive NB L -- -- Note: C/21.8 =Level of Service/Control Delay(Seconds) EB = Eastbound T =Through WB =Westbound L =Left Turn SB =Southbound R =Right Turn NB =Northbound Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. j:\docs2\800\rye2-005.mes.crg.doc TRAFFIC IMPACTS This section of the report describes background traffic conditions, estimates for site-generated traffic for the firehouse, distribution patterns anticipated for analytical purposes, combined traffic volumes and results of capacity analyses for background and combined conditions, for comparison purposes. Background Traffic Projections There are several developments proposed or planned along King Street in the vicinity of Anderson Hill Road and the Westchester County Airport. In addition, the Blind Brook Middle School/High School anticipates a continuing increase in enrollment over the next five years. Therefore, for analytical purposes, traffic from these developments have been added to the background traffic conditions. In addition, the currently vacant Atrium Office Building is assumed to be reoccupied and included in these background traffic projections. Table 4 shows each of the other developments included in this analysis, including size and anticipated traffic generated by each development. However, it is important to note that not all the traffic generated by these specific developments are added to intersections included in the Study Area. Figures 5 and 6 show the non-site-generated traffic for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. In addition to traffic for other developments planned or proposed in and around the Study Area, the 2002 baseline traffic volumes were expanded by a two percent per year growth rate to account for general growth in the surrounding area, including Port Chester, Greenwich and Harrison. Figures 7 and 8 show the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. Projected Firehouse Traffic It is estimated that every emergency call will include three vehicles leaving the firehouse. It is important to note that volunteer firemen will not respond to an emergency call by traveling to the firehouse and then to the location of the emergency. The firemen will drive directly to the location of the emergency call. Therefore, for planning 9 Table 4 NON-SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC - PEAK HOURS Rye Brook Firehouse Rye Brook, New York VEHICLE TRIPS Morning Peak Afternoon Peak DEVELOPMENT SIZE DIRECTION Hour Hour Atrium Office 160,000 SF Enter 238 44 Building Exit 33 215 Total 271 259 Blind Brook High 55 additional Enter 46 12 School/Middle students Exit 22 8 School Expansion Total 68 20 Garden Inn 145 rooms Enter 49 43 Exit 35 44 Total 84 87 Stanwich School 670 students Enter 375 54 K-12 Exit 302 80 Total 677 134 Bellefair Senior 168 units Enter 8 10 Housing facility Exit 4 7 Total 12 17 Note: Stanwich School is proposed to be constructed in phases and to be fully occupied by the year 2008. With enrollment of 280 students for the year 2004, 50 percent of enrollment is considered in this analysis. Source: Individual traffic studies and/or "Trip Generation," 61h Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. j:\docs2\800\rye2-004.mes.crg.doc OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND 33 / ON-RAMP �s� SOUTHBOUND > ON-RAMP 3 NORTHBOUND a To OFF-RAMP .J NORTHBOUND sTP�. W 0 v2 � eo z O v G) rn B Bd.1114 O� rn P 3 'Id. a ON NORTHBOUND 7y OFF-RAMP ?.e SOUTHBOUND � C ON-RAMP SOUTHBOUND �+ Q OFF-RAMP - NORTHBOUND RYE BROOK ' FIREHOUSE 1� ui f U 90 N 3� O O 0 �0 P Z O `O•. r U Q NON—SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES MORNING PEAK HOUR RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE Rye Brook, New York FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Not to Scale File: 868-008rig5 OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND �� p0 tip, �y0 ss ON-RAMP ass SOUTHBOUND >- ON-RAMP Y NORTHBOUND J R0 s J� OFF-RAMP sLJB NORTHBOUND s w z � J� v+ `t Al '3s p0 rn at, ti a- ON-RAMP NORTHBOUND 0 OFF-RAMP *v SOUTHBOUND �9 O C +9 ON-RAMP - SOUTHBOUND = J� S� OFF-RAMP W j NORTHBOUND O ?s+� L RYE BROOK to FIREHOUSEGi W o: h o 1 7a9 Z �� Z P� rr _ V Q NON—SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE Rye Brook, New York FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation G Not to Scale Ftle: 868-008fig6 v OFF—RAMP SOUTHBOUND ��tiC �OpO JJ \ R—81 �1 ON—RAMP SOUTHBOUND Q 3 ON—RAMP NORTHBOUND E J0o BOG CL i 9 *T OFF—RAMP NORTHBOUND J �— Lv s�P W c� ,°`tJ 222 ti Lv ? ° Q. ON—RAMP yao NORTHBOUND OFF—RAMP 7h SOUTHBOUND 10 's N f �o C io'� ON—RAMP 0 SOUTHBOUND ,�, /,► ST oQ OFF—RAMP 9 Or cr NORTHBOUND O� 1ei AFT LU B RYE BROOK W FIREHOUSE,\��G�' s� Of 2ir �/ } O W� y aJ N P� ' 61 1 p 2004 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR Note: These volumes include an annual RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE growth rate of two percent per year, Rye Brook, New York and the non—site traffic volumes. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Not to Scale Fllr 868-008fig7 OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND e% E�GPO �o „s ON-RAMP �s SOUTHBOUND >- ON-RAMP ' NORTHBOUND a*0 ' OFF-RAMP ?e NORTHBOUND ,* ro FT o c� .5 `tS ` a'o 6 Ol Ir s CL ON-RAMP NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP \6� SOUTHBOUND N ,h� ti ON-RAMP SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP NORTHBOUND RYE BROOK �P�� ef�� hV9s " s W FIREHOUSE `6It, es af f / -)ON r R/1 G; 3� Z O 0OQ' �� s`*J s.10 Z O r _ Q 2004 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR Note: These volumes include an annual RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE growth rate of two percent per year, Rye Brook, New York rN and the non—site traffic volumes. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Q Not to Scale File: 868-008flg8 U purposes, each fire emergency would involve three vehicles exiting the firehouse on King Street. For analytical purposes, the analysis assumed an emergency call to the southeast of the firehouse and an emergency call to the northwest. Therefore, although each emergency call will involve three vehicles exiting and eventually returning, for planning purposes, the analysis assumes two emergency calls during the same hour. Table 5 shows a breakdown of the traffic patterns for emergency vehicles. Percent Distribution of Emergency Vehicles Based on an evaluation of area roads, and as noted above, for this analysis it is assumed three emergency vehicles will travel on King Street to the southeast and three emergency vehicles will travel to the northwest on King Street to respond to the calls. Figure 9 shows these traffic patterns for analytical purposes. Combined Traffic Volumes Combined traffic volumes were developed for 2004, which includes the 2002 baseline traffic volumes expanded by a growth rate, as described above, and traffic for other proposed or planned developments in the King Street corridor. In addition, the combined traffic volumes include the emergency vehicle patterns described above. Figures 10 and 11 show combined traffic volumes for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Capacity Analysis Results Results of the analysis show under background traffic conditions each of the intersections will experience additional traffic delays due to the higher volume of traffic on King Street and other roadways due to the additional traffic from the other planned or proposed developments. This additional traffic will result in additional delays and capacity deficiencies at the intersections at the Parkway interchange and other nearby intersections. An analysis completed with emergency vehicles show very little change, if any, decrease in delay at intersections with the addition of a minimal amount of emergency vehicle traffic during these peak hours. 10 Table 5 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC - PEAK HOURS Rye Brook Firehouse Rye Brook, New York VEHICLE TRIPS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTION Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Rye Brook Village Enter 3 3 Fire House Exit 3 3 Total 6 6 Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. j:\docs2\800\rye2-003.mes.crg.doc OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND ,i��C ROPO ON-RAMP SOUTHBOUND >- ON-RAMP Q NORTHBOUND 3 E J Y R�pG a. OFF-RAMP NORTHBOUND ix- Sr�F W o v� c� O G� J r^ Y a ON-RAMP NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP a� SOUTHBOUND �3J N 3� Ar\ ON-RAMP '� SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP = a: NORTHBOUND W RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE ? 81 Q: FT O 3� Z 2 or rtJ 0 P� O Ov Q Q SITE—GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES PEAK HOURS SITE TRAFFIC Enter 6 RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE Exit (6) Total 2 Vehicles Rye Brook, New York Site Access FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Not to Scale nlg: 868-008fig9 OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND �/�C ROPO sa, ON-RAMP SOUTHBOUND Q ON-RAMP �h 3 NORTHBOUND s9r a-- R��G Q. d 'D T OFF-RAMP V5 Leos NORTHBOUND O S� v 10 3 i e2z2� °s �� 0 04 a ON-RAMP ^�� � b NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP Sy SOUTHBOUND 9)`9�� 'o 's ON-RAMP I ''}�/0s SOUTHBOUND i �v'0� OFF-RAMP 0 W j NORTHBOUND N RYE BROOKtAj FIREHOUSE �'S��?�? _ ., T � o a3 zJs� z 0 _ Q � 2004 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES MORNING PEAK HOUR RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE (� Site Access (� Rye Brook, New York FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 10 Not to Scale FlIe:868-008figio OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND �� PQ a, J� R_112 ON-RAMP �s SOUTHBOUND > ON-RAMP 3 NORTHBOUND GQ a cr �y\0 a* OFF-RAMP °� �1a NORTHBOUND �* s� W 0 3 ?° arJ J,O a-- a ON-RAMP NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP SOUTHBOUND 1J�� �•;? C �J ON-RAMP SOUTHBOUND _ OFF-RAMP R ` Ct NORTHBOUND = / o W V) RYE BROOK �P�� 3 '?s9 FIREHOUSE a O W .° Z Z of ,r J\\p S)i O O Ob �O v Q Q 2004 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR RYE BROOK FIREHOUSE Site Access Rye Brook, New York FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 1 1 Not to Scale Flee. 868—D08t1g1 t An analysis of the proposed access drive from the firehouse to King Street shows emergency vehicles would be delayed exiting the driveway due to the high volume of traffic on King Street. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed there are no traffic control devices stopping traffic on King Street. Table 6 shows the results of the capacity analyses for background and combined conditions. Site Access As noted above, a detailed site plan has not been prepared for the proposed firehouse. However, it is assumed the firehouse will have an exclusive access drive to King Street and be located north of the existing Village Hall access drive. It is assumed this driveway will be for two-way traffic flow and serve only the firehouse. Appropriate intersection sight lines will need to be provided and will be determined when the site plan is developed by others. 11 Table 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-PEAK HOURS Rye Brook Firehouse Rye Brook,New York 2002 EXISTING BACKGROUND COMBINED CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS LANE CONTROL GROUP/ INTERSECTION TYPE MOVEMENT Morning Afternoon Mornin Afternoon Mornin Afternoon King Street at Signal EB L C/21.8 C/20.6 C/26.4 C/20.7 C/26.4 C/20.7 Glenville TR C/20.8 C/20.1 C/25.2 C/20.1 C/25.2 C/20.1 Road/School WB LT D/35.9 D/36.9 D/41.3 D/37.4 D/41.3 D/37.4 Drive R D/41.0 E/68.8 F/95.2 E/79.9 F/95.2 E/79.9 NB L B/17.0 B/18.0 B/15.9 B/19.1 B/16.0 B/19.2 TR D/43.3 D/49.3 D/49.8 E/65.7 D/50.6 E/67.2 SB L C/24.6 C/21.3 C/27.3 C/22.2 C/27.3 C/22.2 TR B/14.9 B/13.9 B/12.9 B/15.5 B/12.9 B/15.6 Overall C/31.9 D/40.9 D/44.6 D/48.4 D/44.8 D/49.3 King Street at Signal EB L D/36.7 C/34.2 D/38.1 D/42.1 D/44.6 D/42.1 Arbors Drive R C/35.0 C/35.0 C/34.7 C/34.0 D/39.6 C/34.0 NB L A/1.2 A/1.0 A/7.1 A/1.2 A/3.1 A/1.2 T A/3.7 A/2.8 B/11.3 A/3.5 A/4.3 A/3.5 SB T B/15.9 B/10.2 C/21.9 B/12.8 B/18.8 B/12.8 R A/6.3 A/6.0 A/8.3 A/7.3 A/7.7 A/7.3 Overall B/11.2 A/6.5 B/16.6 B/11.4 B/12.8 1 B/11.4 King Street at STOP EB LR C/18.3 D/30.0 D/26.9 F/60.3 D/26.9 F/60.3 Village Hall NB LT A/9.5 A/8.9 B/19.9 A/9.4 B/10.9 A/9.4 Drive King Street at STOP WB LR F/130.2 E/38.2 F/461.3 F/65.9 F/461.3 F/66.9 Shady Lane SB LT B/10.2 B/10.3 B/10.8 B/I1.5 B/10.8 B/11.6 King Street at STOP EB LR E/45.1 D/27.7 F/236.1 F/52.3 F/242.2 F/53.3 Hutchinson River NB LT A/8.6 A/8.7 A/9.2 A/9.0 A/9.2 A/9.0 Parkway NB Ramps King Street at STOP WB LR C/21.0 C121.1 6/29.7 E/39.6 D/29.7 E/39.6 Glen Ride Road NB TR B/14.2 C/16.1 C/16.5 C/24.6 C/16.5 C/24.7 King Street EB STOP EB LR E/40.4 F/76.5 F/110.6 F/158.4 F/112.0 F/160.7 of N.Ridge Street King Street at STOP WB LR F/254.6 F/623.7 F/614.5 F/- F/627.7 F/- Merritt Parkway NB LT A/9.5 B/10.5 B/10.6 B/11.2 B/10.6 B/I 1.2 SB Off-Ramp/N. Ridge Street King Street at STOP WB R B/12.3 B/13.7 B/14.0 C/15.4 B/14.0 C/15.4 Merritt Parkway SB Off-Ram King Street at STOP WB LR - - F/55.7 E/41.4 Firehouse Drive NB L - B/10.9 A/9.4 Note: C/21.8=Level of Service/Control Delay(Seconds) EB=Eastbound T=Through WB=Westbound L=Left Turn SB=Southbound R=Right Turn NB=Northbound Frederick P.Clark Associates,Inc. j:docs2\g00\rye2-010.mes.crg.doc SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This section of the report describes appropriate traffic control measures necessary to provide appropriate access from the proposed access drive to King Street. Mitigation To ensure that emergency vehicles can safely exit the firehouse during emergency calls, it is recommended that the Village and New York State Department of Transportation consider installing appropriate warning signs on King Street to alert motorists. The NYSDOT will evaluate traffic and access conditions using this report and other requested data. j:\docs2\500\ryefirehousereport.doc 12 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Existing Traffic Volumes Short Report Page 1 of 1 C-'q I SHORT REPORT General n orma ion Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection ARBORS DR. & KINGSTREET Agency or Co. FPCA rea Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 urisdiction Time Period MORNING nalysis Year EXISTING Volume an Iming Inpu.t Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L R L T T R Volume vp o eavy ve Actuated Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 asing EB Only 02 03 4 1 N n y NS Perm Timing = _ Y I Y _ 4 Y = 4 7= ly _ Duration of Analysis rs = U.2b Cycle engt i C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 109 52 24 1036 1899 62 Lane group cap. 248 222 461 1437 1188 1010 /c ratio 0.44 0.23 0.05 0.72 0.76 0.06 Green ratio 0.14 1 10.14 0.77 0.77 0.64 0.64 Unif. delay d1 35.5 34.4 4.3 5.3 11.4 6.1 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1.2 0.5 0.2 2.4 4.5 0.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 0.251 0.251 1.000 1.000 Control delay 36.7 35.0- 1.2 3.7 15.9 6.3 Lane group LOS D C A A B A pprch. delay 36.1 3.7 15.3 Approach LOS D A B Intersec. delay 11.2 Intersection LOS B f{('S,()()OrNI Copyright-,2000 University of Florid.All Riches Rcser%ed Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\s2k14C.tmp 5/'/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT CA - 2 General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SCHOOL & KING STREET Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction ime Period MORNING 1A nalysis Year EXISTING -Volume and Timinq inpu Num. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR LT R L TR L TR Volume vp o eavy ve Actuated Startup lost time 2.0 2. x . e . green 2.5 2.5 rnva pe Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 FI-ed/Bike/RTORVolume Lane Width N3.O 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 13.0 Phasing Eb unyEVVPerm U3 U4 I Nb n y Nb Perm I bb uniy Timing = _ _ Y _ Y _ 4. 4. 1 Y 4. _ Duration ot Analysis rs = 0.25 17-y-c7e7ength = 90-0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 84 34 67 319 33 718 155 492 Lane group cap. 410 535 192 406 304 775 364 894 /c ratio 0.20 0.06 0.35 0.79 0.11 0.93 0.43 0.55 Green ratio 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.48 0.48 Unif. delay d1 21.6 20.8 34.8 31.1 16.3 24.6 30.2 16.5 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.2 0.1 1.1 9.8 0.7 18.7 0.6 1.7 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.796 0.796 Control delay 21.8 20.8 35.9 41.0 17.0 43.3 24.6 14.9 Lane group LOS C C D D B D C B pprch. delay 21.5 40.1 42.1 17.2 Approach LOS C D D B Intersec. delay 31.9 Intersection LOS C HCS2000'�" Copyright'J0 2000 Uni%ersity orFlorida.:Vl Rights Reserved Version s lb file://C:\Temp\s2k158.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of I CA-3 SHORT REPORT General n orma ion Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection ARBOR DR. & KINGSTREET Agency or Co. FPCA rea Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction Time Period AFTERNOON nalysis Year EXISTING Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L R L T T R Volume vp o Heavy ve FEExtension lost time n 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e l e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing n y n y erm Timing Duration of Analysis rs = yc e eng i 7 = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 14 36 34 960 627 60 Lane group cap. 236 211 592 1449 1201 1020 /c ratio 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.66 0.52 0.06 Green ratio 0.13 0.13 0.78 0.78 0.64 0.64 Unif. delay d1 34.1 34.6 3.3 4.6 8.6 5.9 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 0.259 0.259 1.000 1.000 Control delay 34.2 35.0- 1.0 2.8 10.2 6.0 Lane group LOS C C A A B A pprch. delay 34.7 2.7 9.8 Approach LOS C A A Intersec. delay 6.5 Intersection LOS A HCS2000"" Copyright'Q 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved b�rsion 4 1 h file://C:\Temp\s2k164.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 -SHORT REPORT General Information 9 1 e n ormation Analyst FPCA Intersection SCHOOL & KING STREET Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction Time Period AFTERNOON nalysis Year EXISTING -Volume an luringInput- Num. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR LT R L TR L T Volume vp o eavy ve Actuated Startup lost time Ext. eff. green . Arrival type Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e o ume Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Only I EW Perm u3 =04 1 NB Only NS Perm S6 Only Ub Timing IY = 4.5 1 Y _ = I y I Y _ 4.b Y _ 4. _ . _ Duration ot Analysis rs = yc e engt = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 26 18 101 445 9 687 103 544 Lane group cap. 385 537 203 454 232 724 400 946 /c ratio 0.07 0.03 0.50 0.98 0.04 0.95 0.26 0.58 Green ratio 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.51 0.51 Unif. delay d1 20.6 20.1 35.0 31.8 17.7 26.3 27.9 15.4 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.1 0.0 1.9 36.9 0.3 23.1 0.3 2.3 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.755 0.755 Control delay 20.6 20.1 136.9 168.8 18.0 49.3 21.3 13.9 Lane group LOS C C D E B D C B pprch. delay 20.4 62.9 48.9 15.1 Approach LOS C E D B Intersec. delay 40.9 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TIl Copyright(2000 University of Florida.All Rights Resened Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\s2k170.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CIA TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General n ormation Site Information na yst ntersection RAMP I & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Descripfion Ente7rsection s Street: o ou ree : rlen a ion: orth-South IStudy Period (hrsy Vehicle o umes and-Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1048 0 0 560 26 ercent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R pstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHIF 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 40 0 233 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles 71 - Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelot Service Westbound Eastbound Approach NB SB Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 273 C (m) (vph) 989 346 /c 0.00 0.79 95% queue length 0.00 6.54 Control Delay 8.6 45.1 LOS A E Approach Delay -- -- 45.1 Approach LOS -- -- E HCS2000T`t Copyright,402000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k4A.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 ot'2 CA- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection RAMP 3 & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period MORNING Project escnp ion as es Street: INorth/South Mreet IntersectionOrientation: North-South lbtu y Fleriod (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 946 0 0 598 0 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T pstreann Signa Minor Street WestboundEastbound ovemen L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 58 0 219 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR (vph) 277 C (m) (vph) 364 /c 0.76 95% queue length 6.11 Control Delay 40.4 LOS E Approach Delay - -- 40.4 pproach LOS -- -- E HCS2000TM Copyright Z 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Temp\u2k4C.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA -q TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection . Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description East/West Street: o ou reet: Intersection Orientation: North-South IStu y Period ( rs Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Porthboundou boun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 187 538 0 0 446 151 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ,Upstream bignal Minor Street s ound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 152 2 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT (vph) 187 154 C (m) (vph) 980 118 /c 0.19 1.31 95% queue length 0.70 10.18 Control Delay 9.5 254.6 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 254.6 pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000T'*1 Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k4E.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 CA-I► TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SPADY LANE& KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description as es Street'. o ou Street: ntersec ion Urientatiom North-South l6tu y Flenod (nrs)-._ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Streetou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 984 10 7 760 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 74 0 29 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 103 C (m) (vph) 696 114 /c 0.01 0.90 95% queue length 0.03 5.57 Control Delay 10.2 130.2 LOS B F Approach Delay -- -- 130.2 pproach LOS -- -- F file://C:\Temp\u2k50.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > C11-IZ HCS2000TM Copyright D 2000 University of Florida-All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k50.tmp 5/3/02 'Iwo-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA- i3 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection GLEN RIDGE RD. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description East/West Street o ou Street: n ersec ion Orientation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 787 262 269 584 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T ps ream igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour ac or, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 215 0 0 0 ercent F eavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 269 218 C (m) (vph) 659 439 lc 0.41 0.50 95% queue length 1.99 2.70 Control Delay 14.2 21.0 LOS B C Approach Delay -- -- 21.0 Approach LOS -- -- C file://C:\Temp\u2k52.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA-14 HCS2006TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k52.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA- 6 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection VILLAGE HAL777.7— KING STREET gency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING nalysis Time Period MORNING roject Description EasUVVest Streeti ort out Street: n ersec ion rien anon: Vorth-South lbtUdy Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 975 0 0 809 17 ercen 7 R—ea vy 2 __ __ 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ps ream igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 9 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 9 10 C (m) (vph) 805 280 lc 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.11 Control Delay 9.5 18.3 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 18.3 Approach LOS -- -- C file://C:ATemp\u2k54.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > CA-1h HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Temp\u2k54.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-Iq- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Fntersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/27/2002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description East i est Street o outStreet: Intersection nen ation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Vo umes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundout oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 538 0 0 597 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T ps ream igna Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovem—en L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor. Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 47 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 47 C (m) (vph) 543 /c 0.09 95% queue length 0.28 Control Delay 12.3 LOS B Approach Delay -- -- 12.3 Approach LOS -- -- B HCS,000TM Copyright 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Vcrsiun 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k56.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA-(8 file://C:\Temp\u2k56.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 ot"2 CA-1q TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General n ormation Site n ormation Analyst Intersection RAMP I & KING STREET gency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/27/2002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Descrlp Ion as es ree : o ou ree Intersection Orientation: o - ou u y Period (hrs)i Vehicle o umes and-Adjustments ajor Streetou oun ovement o ume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 977 0 0 540 60 Fercent Heavy 2 __ _ 0 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R pstream Signal Minor Street Westboundast oun Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 34 0 164 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 198 C (m) (vph) 977 351 /c 0.00 0.56 95% queue length 0.01 3.31 Control Delay 8.7 27.7 LOS A D pproach Delay -- -- 27.7 pproach LOS — -- D HCS20007Nt Copyright Z 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file:HC:\Temp\u2k58.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Ca-2� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es Street: lNorthiSouth Street: Intersection Onentation orth-Southu y Period (rirs)� Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street NortritDoundout oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 127 568 0 0 605 252 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 2 _ Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR [Upstream Signal Inor Street WestboundEastbound ovemen L T R L T R roiume Peak-Hour Factor, . 91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 227 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration i LT Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT (vph) 127 228 C (m) (vph) 783 105 /c 0.16 2.17 95% queue length 0.58 19.71 Control Delay 10.5 623.7 LOS B F .Approach Delay -- -- 623.7 pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000T,11 Copyright 02000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:ATemp\u2k5C.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-23 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral In ormation Site Information SHADY LA. & KING alyst FPCA Intersection STREET Fn T Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es ree : o ou ree n ersec ion r en a ion: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle VoTumes and "iustments Major Street o ound -Southbound ovemen oume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 978 16 11 701 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ -- 2 — — Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Pponfiguration TR LT stream bignal Minor Street WestboundEastbound ovemen L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 0 11 0 0 0 Flercent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, an Level of rvice Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 11 27 C (m) (vph) 696 135 Vic 0.02 0.20 95% queue length 0.05 0.71 Control Delay 10.3 38.2 LOS B E pproach Delay -- -- 38.2 pproach LOS -- -- E file://C:ATemp\u2k5E.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > M-Zq HCS2000T Il Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k5E.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-L5 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection GLEN RIDGE RL). K/NU STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description East est Street INorth/South Street ntersec ion Orientation: North-South lbtu y Period (rirs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 748 264 362 597 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 _ Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T ps ream igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement i L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 60 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 362 63 C (m) (vph) 681 286 /c 0.53 0.22 95% queue length 3.15 0.82 Control Delay 16.1 21.1 LOS C C Approach Delay -- -- 21.1 pproach LOS -- -- C file://C:\Temp\u2k60.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 DA-2lV HCS2006TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k60.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information - Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection VILLAGE HALL DR. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es Street: o out Street: Intersection rientation: North-South rs Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 1004 0 0 723 2 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 Vehicles L I I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR pstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 7 0 2 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, an eve o ervice Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 1 9 C (m) (vph) 878 117 lc 0.00 0.08 95% queue length 0.00 0.25 Control Delay 9.1 38.3 LOS A E [Approach Delay -- - 38.3 pproach LOS -- -- E file://C:ATemp\u2k62.tmp 513102 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA-z8 HCS200d'm Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version a 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k62.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Cto1-Zq TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description EastI stStreet: o outStreet: Intersection Orientation: orth-South lbtudy Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun ovemen Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 568 0 0 858 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T ,Upstream bignal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour actor, . Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 109 0 0 0 PercentHeavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 109 C (m) (vph) 522 /c 0.21 95% queue length 0.78 Control Delay 13.7 LOS B Approach Delay -- -- 13.7 Approach LOS -- -- 8 /K-S Copyright cD 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved %'CFM0n 4 1 h file://C:ATemp\u2k64.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA.30 file://C:\Temp\u2k64.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-3 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection RAMP 3 & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es Street: ort ouStreet: Intersection rien a ion: North-South 16tu y Heriod (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 818 0 0 832 0 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 __ _ Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T ps ream Signal Minor Street Westboundast oun Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 64 0 161 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR (vph) 225 C (m) (vph) 250 /c 0.90 95% queue length 7.76 Control Delay 76.5 LOS F Approach Delay -- -- 76.5 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS_01)OT',1 Copyright s 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:ATemp\u2k5A.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 607- file://C:\Temp\u2k58.tmp 5/3/02 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Background Traffic Volumes Short Report Page 1 of 1 -SHORT REPORT CA-33 General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection KING STREET&ARBORS Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction Time Period MORNING nalysis Year BACKGROUND Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L R L T T R Volume vp o Heavy ve Actuated St a up losttime . Ext. e . green 2.0 2.0 rrlva pe Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing I EB Only_Ln y Nb Perm iming _ _ _ _ = _ = Duration oV, na]Tysis rs = Cycle eng = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 145 64 111 1137 1012 297 Lane group cap. 262 234 414 1422 1174 997 /c ratio 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.80 0.86 0.30 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.76 0.76 0.63 0.63 Unif. delay d1 35.6 34.1 5.5 6.5 13.5 7.6 Delay factor k 0.15 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.6 0.6 1.6 4.8 8.4 1 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 38.1 34.7 7.1 11.3 21.9 8.3 Lane group LOS D C A B C A pprch. delay 37.1 10.9 18.8 Approach LOS D B B Intersec. delay 16.6 Intersection LOS B HCS2000"' Copyright Q'_000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\s2k11 F.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 CA 3� SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SCHOOL & KING STREET Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction Time Period MORNING Analysis Year BACKGROUND Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR LT R L TR L TR Volume vp o Heavy ve Actuated Startup lost time 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e l e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Unly I LW Perm Only NS Perm SB n y U = 12.1) 1 (3 = 7Z.0 03 #G- U = 4.d G = 37.8 98 Timing = 4.5 17= 1 y = . _ _ _ ura ion ot Analysis rs = yc e eng = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 94 42 70 384 40 847 167 539 Lane group cap. 368 491 176 370 340 872 328 979 /c ratio 0.26 0.09 0.40 1.04 0.12 0.97 0.51 0.55 Green ratio 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.53 Unif. delay d1 26.1 25.1 39.8 38.3 15.2 25.5 36.5 15.8 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.4 0.1 1.5 56.9 0.7 24.3 0.8 1.4 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.725 0.725 Control delay 26.4 25.2 41.3 95.2 15.9 49.8 27.3 12.9 Lane group LOS C C D F B D C 8 pprch. delay 26.0 86.9 48.3 16.3 Approach LOS C F D B Intersec. delay 44.6 Intersection LOS D HCS2000r-"' Copyright,2000 University o[Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.I b file://C:\Temp\s2k128.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 CA-35 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection KING STREET&ARBORS Agency or Co. FPCA DR. Date Performed 0312712002 Area Type All other areas Time Period AFTERNOON Jurisdiction nalysis Year BACKGROUND Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L R L T T R Volume vp o Heavy ve cuae Startup lost time xt. ett. green rnvatype Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB On y 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm Timing Duration of 7757y-sis-TFT=- y7e-7e-ngTi = quo Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 198 83 45 1017 678 88 Lane group cap. 289 259 532 1393 1145 973 /c ratio 0.69 0.32 0.08 0.73 0.59 0.09 Green ratio 0.16 0.16 0.75 0.75 0.61 0.61 Unif. delay d1 35.5 33.2 4.4 6.3 10.5 7.1 Delay factor k 0.25 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 6.6 0.7 0.2 2.1 2.3 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 0.228 0.228 1.000 1.000 Control delay 42.1 34.0 1.2 3.5 12.8 7.3 Lane group LOS D C A A B A pprch. delay 39.7 3.4 12.1 Approach LOS D A B Intersec. delay 11.4 Intersection LOS B HCS2000"' Copyright(0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 h file://C:\Temp\s2kI Ltmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT CR3� General n orma Ion Site n orma Ion Analyst FPCA Intersection SCHOOL & KING STREET Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction Time Period AFTERNOON Analysis Year BACKGROUND Volume and Timing input Num. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR LT R L TR L T Volume vp o Heavy ve Actuated 77- Startup lost time 2.0 Ext. eff. green . rnva Tpe Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only I EW Perm 03 04 1 NB Only NS Perm SB Only 08 Timing = _ _ _ = _ = _ Duration of Analysis rs = 0.25 Cycle Lengt i U = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 33 23 106 466 11 736 116 621 Lane group cap. 381 541 204 456 184 722 400 944 /c ratio 0.09 0.04 0.52 1.02 0.06 1.02 0.29 0.66 Green ratio 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.51 0.51 Unif. delay d1 20.6 20.1 35.1 32.0 18.5 27.2 28.9 16.4 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.1 0.0 2.4 4T8 0.6 38.5 0.3 3.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.756 0.756 Control delay 20.7 20.1 37.4 79.9 19.1 65.7 22.2 15.5 Lane group LOS C C D E B E C B pprch. delay 20.5 72.0 65.0 16.6 Approach LOS C E I E B Intersec. delay 48.8 Intersection LOS D /ICS:000lll Copy right'0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reser%ed Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\s2k13A.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 M.31 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection RAMP I & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description East/West Street: ort ou reet: Intersection Orientation: North-South 16tu y erlo rs : -77 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour ac or, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1173 0 0 698 58 Percent Heavy 2 _ 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour 1-actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 41 0 394 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 435 C (m) (vph) 855 308 1c 0.00 1.41 95% queue length 0.00 22.98 Control Delay 9.2 236.1 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 236.1 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright,S 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Temp\u2kl7E.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA-35 file://C:\Temp\u2k17E.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA 3� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General n ormation Site Information Analyst FPCA ntersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project escrlp ion as es Street: ort ou Street: n ersection rlentation: orth-South IStudy Period (hrsy Vehicle Vo umes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement oume Peak-Hour actor. Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1067 0 0 1 767 1 0 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T pstream bignal Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 60 0 228 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue-Length, and-Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR (vph) 288 C (m) (vph) 273 /c 1.05 95% queue length 11.37 Control Delay 110.6 LOS F [Approach Delay -- -- 110.6 [Approach LOS -- -- F Hcs200or» Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u?k 180.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 OA- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA ntersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING rnersectionc(rTrientation: jec esipIon East es ree : ou ree : orth-South Istucly ergo rs Vehicle o umes and stments Major Streetort oun ou oun ovemen Volume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 194 628 0 0 608 169 Rercent Heavy 2 __ __ 2 — -- Vehicles i I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR pstream Signal Inor tree t Westboundas oun cl Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour actor, . 97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 158 2 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and-Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT (vph) 194 160 C (m) (vph) 839 77 /c 0.23 2.08 95% queue length 0.89 14.51 Control Delay 10.6 614.5 LOS B F Approach Delay -- -- 614.5 pproach LOS -- -- F Copyright Z 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ib file://C:\Temp\u2k182.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of? file://C:\Temp\u2kI 82.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Cal-43 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SHADY LANE & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/27/2002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description as es ree : ort out ree : n ersec ion rien a ion: North-South IStu y Period (Mrs): Vehicle Volumes and-Adjustments Major Street Northboundout oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1104 10 7 1060 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT ps ream Signal Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 76 0 30 0 0 0 PercentHeavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 106 C (m) (vph) 627 64 /c 0.01 1.66 95% queue length 0.03 9.45 Control Delay 10.8 461.3 LOS B F [Approach Delay -- -- 461.3 pproach LOS -- -- F file://C:\Temp\u2k184.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA-Ltq HCS2000T"4 Copyright(0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 184.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA 46 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection KING STREET& Agency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description as es Street: o ouStreet: Intersection Orientation: North-South 16tu y Period (Mrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 893 282 280 765 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 _ Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T ,Upstream bignal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 240 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 280 243 C (m) (vph) 590 381 lc 0.47 0.64 95% queue length 2.54 4.24 Control Delay 16.5 29.7 LOS C D Approach Delay -- -- 29.7 Approach LOS -- -- D HCS2000TM Copyright D 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Vcrston 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k186.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA 4I file://C:\Temp\u2k 186.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site n ormation AnalystIntersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description as es Street: ort ou Tree : Intersection rien a Ion: North-South 16tu y Period (hrsy Vehicle Volumes and-Adjustments Major Street 1qorthboundou oun ovemen Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 893 282 280 765 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T pstream Signal Minor Street estbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 240 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 280 243 C (m) (vph) 590 381 /c 0.47 0.64 95% queue length 2.54 4.24 Control Delay 16.5 29.7 LOS C D Approach Delay -- -- 29.7 Approach LOS -- -- D HCS2000T>A Copyright',Q 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 186.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA_�B file://C:\Temp\u2k 186.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information Analyst FPCA Intersection VILLAGE HALL DR. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project escnp ion as es ree : lNorth/South Street n ersec ion Orientation: North-South lbtu y erio rs Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Rorthboundout oun Movement oume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1093 0 0 1108 18 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR os ream bignaf Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour ac or, . 93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 9 e­r c—e F7 7 eavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 9 10 C (m) (vph) 620 174 lc 0.01 0.06 95% queue length 0.04 0.18 Control Delay 10.9 26.9 LOS B D Approach Delay -- -- 26.9 pproach LOS -- -- D file://C:ATemp\u2kl88.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA.50 HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k188.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 �5 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information na yst ntersectlon Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period MORNING Project escrlp ion as es ree : o out Street: ntersec ion nen a ion: o - ou u y erlo rs e ice Volumes an 'justments aior Street Northboundou oun Movement oiume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 628 0 0 776 0 ercen eavy 0 __ __ 2 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T pstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 83 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 83 C (m) (vph) 483 /c 0.17 95% queue length 0.61 Control Delay 14.0 LOS B pproach Delay -- -- 14.0 pproach LOS -- — B HCS 00V M Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 18A.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Cq-.5z file://C:\Temp\u2kI 8A.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-53 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection RAMP I & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project escrlption as es Street: o ou Street: ntersec lon rien ation: North-South [Stu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments MajorStreet- Northbound out oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 1220 0 0 606 74 ercen eavy 2 0 — Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R ,Upstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 35 0 179 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 IC ane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 214 (m) (vph) 912 275 lc 0.00 0.78 95% queue length 0.01 5.92 Control Delay 9.0 52.3 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 52.3 pproach LOS -- -- F flCS2000T'11 Copyright 4r7'_000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:ATemp\u2k 18E.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA 5' file:HC:\Temp\u2k 18E.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-56 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TFCA ntersectlon RAMP 3 & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es ree : INorth/South e : Intersection rlen atlon: North-Southu y erlo rs Vehicle Volumes and-Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun ovement Volume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1007 0 0 923 0 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T Upstream Signa Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 67 0 168 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR (vph) 235 C (m) (vph) 204 /c 1.15 95% queue length 11.52 Control Delay 158.4 LOS F [Approach Delay -- -- 158.4 pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reser-ed Version 4 1 b file://C:ATemp\u2k190.tmp 5/2/02 "rwo-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 C4-5T TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General n ormation Site n ormation Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as ree : o ou ree es n ersec Ion rien ation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle o umes and Justments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement oume Peak-Hour actor, . 91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 132 652 0 0 686 279 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 2 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR pstream Sigr4 Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 236 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT (vph) 132 237 C (m) (vph) 714 77 lc 0.18 3.08 95% queue length 0.67 23.74 Control Delay 11.2 LOS B F [Approach Delay -- -- pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000T" Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k192.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 C4� -60 file:HC:\Temp\u2k 192.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SHADY LA. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es Street: o ou ree : n ersec ion rien a ion: North-South 16tu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1223 16 11 782 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT ,Upstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, 7d-Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 11 28 C (m) (vph) 562 86 lc 0.02 0.33 95% queue length 0.06 1.24 Control Delay 11.5 65.9 LOS B F Approach Delay -- -- 65.9 Approach LOS -- -- F file://C:ATemp\u2k194.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > M_(00 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2kI 94.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-b( TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA fritersection KING STREET& Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description East est Street: ort ou Street: Intersection rien a ion: North-South IStu y Period (1-irs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 924 333 376 677 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T Upstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 68 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration ILR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 376 71 C (m) (vph) 549 173 /c 0.68 0.41 95% queue length 5.25 1.83 Control Delay 24.6 39.6 LOS C E pproach Delay -- -- 39.6 pproach LOS -- -- E IF HCS2000TM Copyright 02000 University of Florida.All Rights Reser',ed Version 1 1h file://C:ATemp\u2kl96.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ' TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General n ormation Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection VILLAUL: HALL DR. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project escnp ion F es ree : o ou ree : c on rienta ion: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 1253 0 0 805 2 Percent Heavy 2 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ps ream signal 1Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 7 0 2 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N ENStorage 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 1 9 C (m) (vph) 818 74 lc 0.00 0.12 95% queue length 0.00 0.40 Control Delay 9.4 60.3 LOS A F [Approach Delay -- -- 60.3 pproach LOS -- -- F file://C:ATemp\u2k 198.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > X( HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k198.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 M_b5 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description East/\Nest Street o ouStreet: Intersection rlen a ion: North-South 16tu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 652 0 0 956 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T ,Upstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 123 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I I I R Dellay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 123 C (m) (vph) 468 /c 0.26 95% queue length 1.04 Control Delay 15.4 LOS C Approach Delay -- -- 15.4 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000Tm Copyright D 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Temp\u2k 19A.tmp 5/2/02 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Combined Traffic Volumes Short Report Page 1 of l SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection KING STREET&ARBORS Agency or Co. FPCA DR. Date Performed 0312712002 Area Type All other areas Time Period MORNING Jurisdiction nalysis Year COMBINED Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L R L T T R Volume vp o Heavy ve Actuated Startup lost time . Ext. e . green 2.0 Arrival type Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 Timing Duration of Analysis rs = 0.25 yc e 7eng 7C = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 145 64 111 1141 1016 297 Lane group cap. 242 217 490 1459 1235 1050 /c ratio 0.60 0.29 0.23 0.78 0.82 0.28 Green ratio 0.14 1 0.14 0.78 0.78 0.66 0.66 Unif. delay d1 40.6 38.8 8.8 6.1 12.5 7.0 Delay factor k 0.19 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.1 0.8 0.7 2.9 6.3 0.7 PF factor 1.000 1.000 0.265 0.230 1.000 1.000 Control delay 44.6 39.6 3.1 4.3 18.8 7.7 Lane group LOS D D A A B A pprch. delay 43.1 4.2 16.3 Approach LOS D A B Intersec. delay 12.8 Intersection LOS B HGS'Onpr�I Copyright-0 2000 University of Florida,All Riehts Reserved Version-t 1 b file://C:\Temp\s2kF3.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SCHOOL & KING STREET Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas FDate Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction me Period MORNING nalysis Year COMBINED -Volume an iming Input Num. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR LT R L TR L TR Volume vp o Heavy ve Actuated Startup lost time Ext. e . green 2777- Arrival type 3 3 3 7E Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e l e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 1 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension L3701 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3 0-1 1 3.0 3.0 Phasing I EB Unly L Evv Perm 03 04 1 Nb Unly N8 Perm I S13 Only Timing = = _ Y _ _ 4.5 Y _ 4.5 Y _ Duration of Analysis rs = U.2b Cycle Lengg C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 94 42 70 384 40 850 167 543 Lane group cap. 368 491 176 370 337 872 328 979 /c ratio 0.26 0.09 0.40 1.04 0.12 0.97 0.51 0.55 Green ratio 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.53 Unif. delay d1 26.1 25.1 39.8 38.3 15.2 25.6 36.5 15.9 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.4 0.1 1.5 56.9 0.7 24.9 0.8 1.4 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.725 0.725 Control delay 26.4 25.2 41.3 95.2 16.0 50.6 27.3 12.9 Lane group LOS C C D F 8 D C 8 pprch. delay 26.0 86.9 49.0 16.3 Approach LOS C F D 8 Intersec. delay 44.8 Intersection LOS D Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\s2kFC.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page l of 1 SHORT REPORT General n orma ion Site Informa5on Analyst FPCA Intersection KING STREET &ARBORS Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction Time Period AFTERNOON nalysis Year COMBINED Volume and I iming npu Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L N L T T R Volume vp Heavy ve Actuated Startup lost time x . e . green 77 rrlva pe Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e i e Volume Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 1 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Only 1 U2 u1j 1 U4 y NS Perm Timing = Y _ 1Y _ 4 Y = 7- Duration of Analysis rs = Cycle Lengi 77 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 198 83 45 1020 681 88 Lane group cap. 289 259 530 1393 1145 973 /c ratio 0.69 0.32 0.08 0.73 0.59 0.09 Green ratio 0.16 1 10.16 0.75 0.75 0.61 0.61 Unif. delay d1 35.5 33.2 4.4 6.3 10.5 7.1 Delay factor k 0.25 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 6.6 0.7 0.2 2.1 2.3 1 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 0.228 0.228 1.000 1.000 Control delay 42.1 34.0 1.2 3.5 12.8 7.3 Lane group LOS D C A A B A pprch. delay 39.7 3.4 12.2 Approach LOS D A B Intersec. delay 11.4 Intersection LOS B HCS2000T'l Copyright:012000 University of i lorida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 lb file://C:\Temp\s2kI 05.tmp 5/3/02 Short Report Page 1 of 1 -SHORT REPORT COD General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SCHOOL & KING STREET Agency or Co. FPCA Area Type All other areas Date Performed 0312712002 Jurisdiction ime Period AFTERNOON nalysis Year COMBINED -Vollume an lming Input Num. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR LT R L TR L T Volume vp o Heavy ve Actuated Startup lost time . x . e . green . Arrival type Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 e I e o ume Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.7 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EVV Perm 03 U4 I Nb n y NS Perm SE3 Only Timing = 4.b I Y = I y I y = _ _ 4.5 Y = Duration of Analysis rs = Cycle Lengt i C = Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 33 23 106 466 11 740 116 625 Lane group cap. 381 541 204 456 182 722 400 944 /c ratio 0.09 0.04 0.52 1.02 0.06 1.02 0.29 0.66 Green ratio 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.51 0.51 Unif. delay d1 20.6 20.1 35.1 32.0 18.6 27.2 28.9 16.5 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.1 0.0 2.4 47.8 0.6 40.0 0.3 3.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.756 0.756 Control delay 20.7 20.1 37.4 79.9 19.2 67.2 22.2 15.6 Lane group LOS C C D E B E C B pprch. delay 20.5 72.0 66.5 16.6 Approach LOS C E E B Intersec. delay 49.3 Intersection LOS D HCS2000rM Copyright 3 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Resen ed Version 4 l b file://C:\Temp\s2kI OE.tmp 5/3/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-$ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite n ormation na yst FPCA Intersection RAMP 1 & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING intF jec escrlp ion es ree : ort ou reet: rscioe n rien a Ion: North-South 18tu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement o ume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1176 0 0 702 58 Percent Heavy 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R ps ream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 41 0 394 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles i I Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration i LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 0 435 C (m) (vph) 852 305 lc 0.00 1.43 95% queue length 0.00 23.26 Control Delay 9.2 242.2 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 242.2 pproach LOS -- -- F Hcsl000T%t Copyright,,Q 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ib file://C:\Temp\u2k19E.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file://C:\Temp\u2k 19E.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 Cq 3 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection RAMP 3 & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description as es Street: o ou tree : Intersection nen ation: Alorth-South 1,StUdy Perl.od (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Florthboundout oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour actor, . 97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1070 0 0 770 0 Percent Heavy 2 __ __ 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T pstreambignaT- 0 f inor Street WestboundEastbound ovemen L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 60 0 228 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and-Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR (vph) 288 C (m) (vph) 272 /c 1.06 95% queue length 11.44 Control Delay 112.0 LOS F pproach Delay -- -- 112.0 pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000T"t copyright,2000 Universitv oC Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k I A0.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of? CA•gf file:HC:\Temp\u2k 1 AO.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA, TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information AnalystIntersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description East/West Street: ]North/Sou Street: Intersection rien a ion: North-South IStu y Period ( rs Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Streetou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 194 631 0 0 611 169 Percent Heavy 2 _ __ 2 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR pstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 158 2 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT (vph) 194 160 C (m) (vph) 837 76 /c 0.23 2.11 95% queue length 0.90 14.61 Control Delay 10.6 627.7 LOS B F Approach Delay -- -- 627.7 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright(0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Temp\u2k1 A2.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA file:HC:\Temp\u2k1 A2.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SHAD Y LANE& KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED nalysis Time Period MORNING rojec escnp ion as es ree : o ou -Street: n ersec ion Orientation: orth-South IStudy Period (hrs). Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1107 10 7 1064 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream igna Minor Street Westbound ast oun Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 76 0 30 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, andLevel of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 106 C (m) (vph) 625 64 /c 0.01 1.66 95% queue length 0.03 9.45 Control Delay 10.8 461.3 LOS B F [Approach Delay -- -- 461.3 pproach LOS -- -- F file://C:ATemp\u2k 1 A4.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 HCS200JM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k1 A4.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 CA," TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection KING STREET& Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description East/West Street: ort ou Street: Intersection Orientation: North-South 16tu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound ou oun Movement Volume 0 /98 251 25 6891 Peak-Hour ac or, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 896 282 280 768 0 Percent Heavy 0 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T ,Upstream 6ignal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 240 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 280 243 C (m) (vph) 589 381 /c 0.48 0.64 95% queue length 2.55 4.24 Control Delay 16.5 29.7 LOS C D Approach Delay -- -- 29.7 Approach LOS -- -- D 11CS2000T11 Cop}rightL'2Onolhnersat ofFlorida,AI] RiohrsRescued Version4.1b file://C:ATemp\u2k I A6.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA•90 file://C:\Temp\u2k1 A6.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA-0( TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection VILLAUL: HALL DR. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description I1Eas esStreet: [North/Sou Street: n ersec ion nen ation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs)� Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1096 0 0 1111 18 Percent Heavy 2 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal Minor Street TestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 9 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I I I I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 9 10 C (m) (vph) 619 174 lc 0.01 0.06 95% queue length 0.04 0.18 Control Delay 10.9 26.9 LOS B D Approach Delay -- -- 26.9 Approach LOS -- -- D file://C:ATemp\u2k1A8.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > CA•9�- HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 A8.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA.03 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING Project escnp ion as es Street: INorth/South Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 631 0 0 779 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T pstream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 83 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 83 C (m) (vph) 481 /c 0.17 95% queue length 0.62 Control Delay 14.0 LOS B [Approach Delay — -- 14.0 pproach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TNI Copyright 3 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 AA.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 ot'2 file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 AA.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of"? CA-�6 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General n ormation Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 03/27/2002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period MORNING Project Description EasVWest btreeti ]North/Sou Street ntersection Orientation: oith-South IStudy Period (Mrs): Vehicle Vo umes anEFAdjustments Major Street lTo-Fhboundou oun ovemen oiume Peak-Hour actor, . Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 1106 0 0 1136 3 Percent Heavy 2 __ _ 0 -- -- Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ps ream igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound ovemen L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and-Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 3 6 C (m) (vph) 613 77 /c 0.00 0.08 95% queue length 0.01 0.25 Control Delay 10.9 55.7 LOS B F Approach Delay -- - 55.7 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS2000Tm Coperight-Q 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:ATemp\u2k 1 AE.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 AE.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA.Sq TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection RAMP I & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description East est Street ort ou Street: Intersection rlen a Ion: North-South IStu y Heriod (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 1223 0 0 609 74 Percent Heavy 2 0 Vehicles F Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R ,Upstream bignal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 35 0 179 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 r 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 214 C (m) (vph) 910 273 lc 0.00 0.78 95% queue length 0.01 6.00 Control Delay 9.0 53.3 LOS A F Approach Delay - -- 53.3 pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright s 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Temp\u2k1 BO.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 BO.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 CA- S� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Fnalyst nera m Information Site n oration Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON roject Description as es Street o ou ree 0.25 ntersectlon Orientation! NORF77777 IStudy Period (hrs): e ice o umes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound ou oun Movement Volume ea - our actor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1010 0 0 926 0 Percent Heavy 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T ps ream Igna Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R oume ea - our Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 67 0 168 ercent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue ength, and evel of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR (vph) 235 C (m) (vph) 203 203 /c 1.16 95% queue length 11.60 Control Delay 160.7 LOS F [Approach Delay -- -- 160.7 pproach LOS -- -- F HCS200e" Copyright Z'-000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 B2.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file:HC:\Temp\u2k 1 B2.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description East/ es ree : ]North/Sou Street: Intersection rlen a Ion: North-South IStu y Heriod (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 132 656 0 0 690 269 ercen eavy 2 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ps ream 71gna Minor Street WestboundEastbound ovemen L T R L T R Volume ea - our Factor, 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 236 1 0 0 0 0 Percent eavy 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT (vph) 132 237 C (m) (vph) 717 78 lC 0.18 3.04 95% queue length 0.67 23.64 Control Delay 11.2 LOS B F Approach Delay -- -- Approach LOS -- — F HCS2000TM Copyright!0 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 B4.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 ot"2 file://C:ATemp\u2k 1 B4.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection SHADY LA. & KING STREET Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es Street [North/Sou Street: Intersection rien a ion: North-South IStoy Heriod ( rs Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1227 16 11 785 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT os ream Signal Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 11 28 C (m) (vph) 560 85 /c 0.02 0.33 95% queue length 0.06 1.25 Control Delay 11-6 66.9 LOS B F pproach Delay -- -- 66.9 pproach LOS -- -- F file://C:ATemp\u2k 1 B6.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 > CA V HCS2000T M Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 B6.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 L/M se TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information na yst FPCA Intersection KING STREET& Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project escnp Ion EastiWest Streeti o ou Street: Intersection Orientatiom North-Southu y erio rs Vehicle Vo umes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun ovement Volume Peak-Hour actor, . Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 927 333 376 680 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR LT T Upstream igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound ovement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 68 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 376 71 C (m) (vph) 548 173 /c 0.69 0.41 95% queue length 5.27 1.83 Control Delay 24.7 39.6 LOS C E [Approach Delay -- -- 39.6 pproach LOS -- -- E HCS200J" Copyright 1 2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ib file://C:\Temp\u2k1B8.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 c� 9� file://C:\Temp\u2k1 B8.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 C4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection VILLAGE HALL DR. & KING STREET gency/Co. FPCA urisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year COMBINED nalysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description East/West Street o ou Street: ntersection Orientation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundout oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Fac or, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 1257 0 0 809 2 Percent Heavy 2 0 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ,Upstream Signal Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 7 0 2 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles I I I i Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 1 9 C (m) (vph) 815 74 lc 0.00 0.12 95% queue length 0.00 0.40 Control Delay 9.4 60.3 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 60.3 Approach LOS -- -- F file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 BA.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA qb HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 BA.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 M_q`1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FPCA Intersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 nalysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project Description as es Street: ort / out Street: Intersection Orientation: North-South IStu y Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northboundout oun Movement Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 649 0 0 959 0 Percent Heavy 0 __ __ 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration T T ,Upstream Signal Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, . 00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 123 0 0 0 Percent Heavy 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I i R Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 123 C (m) (vph) 470 /c 0.26 95% queue length 1.04 Control Delay 15.4 LOS C Approach Delay - -- 15.4 pproach LOS - -- C HCS2000T�' Copyright J 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.i b file://C:\Temp\u2kl BC.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 file:HC:\Temp\u2k1 BC.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 M-lo TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst FFCA ntersection Agency/Co. FPCA Jurisdiction Date Performed 0312712002 Analysis Year COMBINED Analysis Time Period AFTERNOON Project escnp ion as es Street: ort ouStreet: IntersectionOrientation: North-South 16tu y Period (hrsy Vehicle Volumes and-Adjustments Major Street Northboundou oun Movement Volume ea - our Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 1247 0 0 799 3 Percent Heavy 2 Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ,Upstream 6igna Minor Street WestboundEastbound Movement L T R L T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percent Heavy 0 0 0 2 0 2 Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 3 6 C (m) (vph) 822 105 lc 0.00 0.06 95% queue length 0.01 0.18 Control Delay 9.4 41.4 LOS A E Approach Delay -- -- 41.4 pproach LOS -- -- E tics2000T'Nt Copyright Z 2000 University of f=lorida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.l b file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 BE.tmp 5/2/02 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 CA (0Z file://C:\Temp\u2k 1 BE.tmp 5/2/02