The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutT-6191 - Traffic Impact Study - ARMSTRONG & FANCHER CREEK - 7/12/2018 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Tract 6191 Single-Family Housing At the Northwest Quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive In the City of Fresno, California Prepared for: BN 5499 LP 7030 N Fruit Ave., Ste. 101 Fresno, CA 93711 Project No. 004-057 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Phone: (559) 570-8991 www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004-057 Tract 6191 TIA\Report\R04112018 Tract 6191 TIA.docx Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Phone: (559) 570-8991 www.JLBtraffic.com Draft Traffic Impact Analysis For Tract 6191 located at the northwest quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive In the City of Fresno, CA April 11, 2018 This Draft Technical Letter has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. Prepared by: _________________________________ Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE President www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | iii Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Table of Contents Introduction and Summary ....................................................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 1 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 1 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 2 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 2 Queuing Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Project’s Equitable Fair Share .................................................................................................................. 3 TIA Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................3 Study Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Intersections: ................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Only Trips to State Facilities: ....................................................................................................... 3 Study Scenarios ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 3 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 3 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions: .............................................................................................. 4 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 4 Level of Service Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................4 Criteria of Significance ..........................................................................................................................4 Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults ....................................................................................5 Existing Traffic Conditions .....................................................................................................................6 Roadway Network ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis ................................................................................................ 8 Traffic Signal Warrants ................................................................................................................................. 8 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................ 10 Project Description..................................................................................................................................... 10 Project Access ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 10 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | iv Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Bikeways .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Safe Routes to School ................................................................................................................................ 11 Results of Existing plus Project Level of Service Analysis .......................................................................... 13 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 13 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 17 Description of Approved and Pipeline Projects ......................................................................................... 17 Results of Near Term plus Project Level of Service Analysis ...................................................................... 19 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 20 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................................................... 23 Results of Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Level of Service Analysis ................................................... 23 Traffic Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................................... 24 Project’s Trip Assignment to Caltrans Facilities ......................................................................................... 24 Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 28 Project’s Pro-Rata Fair Share of Future Transportation Improvements.................................................. 30 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................................... 31 Existing Traffic Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 31 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 31 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 31 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................................................... 32 Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 32 Project’s Equitable Fair Share ................................................................................................................ 32 Study Participants ............................................................................................................................... 33 References .......................................................................................................................................... 33 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | v Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls................................................................................... 9 Figure 3: Project Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: 2018 Project Only Trips ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5: Existing plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ............................................................. 16 Figure 6: Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Near Term plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ......................................................... 22 Figure 8: 2035 Project Only Trips ............................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 9: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ....................................... 26 Figure 10: Fowler Avenue at State Route 180 Interchange - 2035 Project Only Trips .............................................. 27 List of Tables Table I: Existing Intersection LOS Results .................................................................................................................. 8 Table II: Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................. 10 Table III: Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Results ........................................................................................... 13 Table IV: Near Term Projects’ Trip Generation ........................................................................................................ 18 Table V: Near Term plus Project Intersection LOS Results ....................................................................................... 19 Table VI: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Intersection LOS Results .................................................................... 23 Table VII: Queuing Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Table VIII: Project’s Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements .......................................................................... 30 List of Appendices Appendix A: Scope of Work Appendix B: Traffic Counts Appendix C: Traffic Modeling Appendix D: Methodology Appendix E: Existing Traffic Conditions Appendix F: Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions Appendix G: Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions Appendix H: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions Appendix I: Signal Warrants www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 1 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Introduction and Summary Introduction This report describes a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the proposed Tentative Tract 6191 (Project) in the City of Fresno. The Project proposes to develop 110 single- family residential units on 10 acres at the northwest quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive. Based on data provided to JLB, the Project is consistent with the 2035 City of Fresno General Plan. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Project site relative to the surrounding roadway network. The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate the potential on- and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. The scope of work was prepared via consultation with the City of Fresno, County of Fresno, and Caltrans staff. Summary The potential traffic impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the level of service (LOS) policy of the City of Fresno, County of Fresno and Caltrans. Existing Traffic Conditions At present, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is operating at LOS E during the AM peak period. Although this intersection is recorded to operate at an unacceptable LOS, the operations at this intersection are considered adverse but not significant. Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions To improve the safety of the Project access points, it is recommended that appropriate corner sight distance be provided pursuant to the latest edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. With appropriate corner sight distance, the Project driveways to be constructed will be located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network. At buildout, the Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,038 daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. It is recommended that the Project implement Class II bike lanes along its frontage to Fancher Creek Drive. To promote alternative modes of transportation to Temperance-Kutner Elementary School, it is recommended that the Clovis Unified School District work with the City of Fresno and County of Fresno to implement a Safe Routes to School plan and to seek grant funding to help build bikeways and walkways where they are lacking within the one-mile radius of the existing school site. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM peak period. To improve the LOS at this intersection, it is recommended that it be controlled by an all-way stop. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 2 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions The total trip generation for the near term projects is 114,164 daily trips, 9,164 AM peak hour trips and 11,158 PM peak hour trips. Under this scenario, the intersections of Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at the intersections projected to exceed their LOS threshold, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented. o Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane; Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane. o Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; Add a westbound right-turn lane; Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing and modify the intersection to accommodate the added lane. The Project accounts for 0.9 percent of the daily trips, 0.9 percent of the AM peak hour trips and 1.0 percent of the PM peak hour trips of growth in traffic, while the rest can be attributable to the near term projects. Therefore, one can deduce that the majority of the mitigation measures presented under this scenario may not be necessary immediately upon completion of the proposed Project. Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions Under this scenario, the intersections of Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at the intersections projected to exceed their LOS threshold, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented. o Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; Add a second westbound left-turn lane; Add a second westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Fowler Avenue; and Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lanes. o Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; Add a second westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Armstrong Avenue; Add a westbound right-turn lane; Implement overlap phasing of the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left-turn phase; Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lanes. Queuing Analysis It is recommended that the City consider left- and right-turn lane storage lengths as indicated in the Queuing Analysis. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 3 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Project’s Equitable Fair Share It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable Fair Share as presented in Table VIII. TIA Scope of Work The study focused on evaluating traffic conditions at the existing study intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. On February 26, 2018, a Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for this Project was provided to the City of Fresno, County of Fresno and Caltrans for their review and comment. The Draft Scope of Work was based on communication with City of Fresno staff. Any comments to the proposed Scope of Work were to be provided by March 19, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the City of Fresno approved the Draft Scope of Work as presented. Similarly, on March 21, 2018, Caltrans approved the Draft Scope of Work as presented. On March 26, 2018, the County of Fresno also approved the Draft Scope of Work as presented. The Draft Scope of Work and the comments received from the lead agency and responsible agencies are included in Appendix A. Study Facilities The existing peak hour turning movement volume counts were conducted at the study intersections in April 2018 while schools in the vicinity of the proposed Project were in session. The intersection turning movement counts included pedestrian volumes. The traffic counts for the existing study intersections are contained in Appendix B. The existing intersection turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 2. Study Intersections: 1. Fowler Avenue / Belmont Avenue 2. Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue Project Only Trips to State Facilities: 1. Fowler Avenue / State Route 180 Study Scenarios Existing Traffic Conditions This scenario evaluates the Existing Traffic Conditions based on existing traffic volumes and roadway conditions from traffic counts and field surveys conducted in the year 2018. Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Existing plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by adding the 2018 Project Only Trips to the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario. The 2018 Project Only Trips to the study intersections were based on existing travel patterns, the Fresno COG Project Select Zone, the existing roadway network, data provided by the developer, knowledge of the study area, engineering judgment, existing residential and commercial densities, and the 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project. The Fresno COG Models for the Project Select Zone are contained in Appendix C. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 4 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions: This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Near Term plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by adding the Near Term related trips to the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by adding the 2035 Project Only Trips with the increment obtained from the Fresno COG traffic model runs (Base Year 2018 and Cumulative Year 2035) and existing traffic counts. Under this scenario, the increment method, as recommended by the Model Steering Committee was utilized to determine the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project traffic volumes. The Fresno COG Models are contained in Appendix C. Level of Service Analysis Methodology Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative index of the performance of an element of the transportation system. LOS is a rating scale running from “A” to “F”, with “A” indicating no congestion of any kind and “F” indicating unacceptable congestion and delays. LOS in this study describes the operating conditions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is the standard reference published by the Transportation Research Board and contains the specific criteria and methods to be used in assessing LOS. U-turn movements were analyzed using HCM 2000 methodologies and would yield more accurate results for the reason that HCM 2010 methodologies do not allow the analysis of U-turns. Synchro software was used to define LOS in this study. Details regarding these calculations are included in Appendix D. Criteria of Significance The 2035 City of Fresno General Plan has established various degrees of acceptable level of service (LOS) on its major streets, which are dependent on four (4) Traffic Impact Zones (TIZ) within the City. The standard LOS threshold for TIZ I is LOS F, that for TIZ II is LOS E, that for TIZ III is LOS D, and that for TIZ IV is LOS E. Additionally, the 2035 MEIR made findings of overriding consideration to allow a lower LOS threshold than that established by the underlying TIZ’s. For those cases in which a LOS criterion for a roadway segment differs from that of the underlying TIZ, such criteria are identified in the roadway description. As all study facilities fall within TIZ III, LOS D is used to evaluate the potential significance of LOS impacts to intersections and segments within this TIA pursuant to the 2035 City of Fresno General Plan. The County of Fresno has established LOS C as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on county roads and streets that fall entirely outside the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of a City. For those areas that fall within the SOI of a City, the LOS criteria of the City are the criteria of significance used in this report. LOS C is used to evaluate the potential significance of LOS impacts to Fresno County intersections and segments, which fall outside the City of Fresno SOI. In this case, all study facilities fall within the City of Fresno SOI and therefore the City of Fresno LOS is utilized. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 5 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and D on State highway facilities consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. In this TIA, however, all study facilities fall within the City of Fresno. Therefore, the City of Fresno LOS thresholds are utilized. Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults The following operational analysis values, assumptions and defaults were used in this study to ensure a consistent analysis of LOS among the various scenarios. Yellow time consistent with the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) based on approach speeds Yellow time of 3.2 seconds for left-turn phases All-red clearance intervals of 1.0 second for all phases Walk intervals of 7.0 seconds Flashing Don’t Walk based on 3.5 feet/second walking speed with yellow plus all-red clearance subtracted and 2.0 seconds added All new or modified signals utilize protective left-turn phasing A 3 percent heavy vehicle factor The number of observed pedestrians at existing intersections was utilized under all study scenarios An average of 3 pedestrian calls per hour at signalized intersections At existing intersections, the observed approach Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is utilized in the Existing, Existing plus Project and Near Term plus Project scenarios A PHF of 0.92, or the existing PHF if higher, is utilized in the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project scenario www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 6 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Existing Traffic Conditions Roadway Network The Project site and surrounding study area are illustrated in Figure 1. Important roadways serving the Project are discussed below. Fowler Avenue is an existing north-south two- to four-lane divided arterial in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In this area, Fowler Avenue is a four-lane divided arterial north of Clinton Avenue and south of the State Route 180 Interchange, and a two-lane undivided collector between Clinton Avenue and the State Route 180 Interchange. Fowler Avenue extends south from the City of Clovis SOI and beyond the City of Fresno SOI. The City of Fresno 2035 General Plan Circulation Element designates Fowler Avenue as a four- lane divided arterial through the City of Fresno SOI. Furthermore, the 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element acknowledged that Fowler Avenue would exceed LOS D as a four-lane facility between McKinley Avenue and Olive Avenue and Kings Canyon Road and Hamilton Avenue. However, City Council made the appropriate findings to designate LOS E or F as the criteria of significance for these segments of Fowler Avenue. Belmont Avenue is an existing east-west two- to three-lane, arterial in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In this area, Belmont Avenue extends through the City of Fresno SOI. The 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Belmont Avenue as a two-lane collector between Grantland Avenue and Cornelia Avenue, a four-lane collector between Cornelia Avenue and West Avenue, a two-lane collector between West Avenue and Cedar Avenue, a four-lane collector between Cedar Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, a four-lane arterial between Chestnut Avenue and Temperance Avenue, and a two-lane collector east Temperance Avenue through the City of Fresno SOI. The 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element acknowledged that additional lanes would be necessary for Belmont Avenue between Parkview Drive and Model Drive, Weber Avenue and Broadway Avenue, and Abby Street and Cedar Avenue by the year 2035. However, City Council made the appropriate findings to designate LOS E or F as the criteria of significance for these segments of Belmont Avenue. Armstrong Avenue is an existing north-south two-lane divided scenic collector in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Armstrong Avenue extends south from the City of Clovis SOI to Fancher Creek Drive. The 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element designates Armstrong Avenue as two-lane collector between the City of Clovis SOI and Belmont Avenue and a two-lane scenic collector between Belmont Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive. The 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element acknowledged that Armstrong Avenue would exceed LOS D as a two-lane facility between McKinley Avenue and Olive Avenue. However, City Council made appropriate findings to designate LOS E as the criteria of significance for this segment of Armstrong Avenue as a two-lane facility. State Route 180 is an existing east-west four- to six-lane highway in the vicinity of the proposed Project. State Route 180 connects southeast and southwest Fresno with Downtown Fresno and has freeway-to- freeway interchanges at State Route 41, State Route 99 and State Route 168. East of Fresno, State Route 180 also provides access to Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks, while west of Fresno, State Route 180 connects to the cities of Kerman and Mendota. BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/09/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Vicinity Map Figure 1 1 2 N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 8 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis Figure 2 illustrates the Existing Traffic Conditions turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix E. Table I presents a summary of the Existing peak hour LOS at the study intersections. At present, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is operating at LOS E during the AM peak period. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the recorded delay is for the worst approach. In this case, the worst approach was that for the northbound movement. On the day that these counts were collected, this movement observed only two (2) northbound left-turn turn trips – the most difficult movement to make. Furthermore, since the delay for each approach is an average of the delay experienced by all the movements for that approach, the results are far worse than reality. If this approach had only one (1) northbound right-turn trip – the easiest movement to make – on the day these counts were collected, the average delay for the northbound approach would be recorded at 34.7 seconds, yielding LOS D. Therefore, the LOS operations at this intersection are considered adverse but not significant. Table I: Existing Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1 Fowler Avenue / Belmont Avenue Signalized 24.6 C 23.6 C 2 Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue Two-Way Stop 47.6 E 19.8 C Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. Traffic Signal Warrants The peak hour traffic signal warrant was prepared for the unsignalized intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue in the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario. This warrant is found in Appendix I. The effects of right-turning traffic from the minor approach onto the major approach were taken into account using engineering judgement pursuant to the CA MUTCD guidelines for the preparation of traffic signal warrants. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue does not satisfy the peak hour signal warrant during either peak period. Therefore, based on the failure to meet the signal warrant and engineering judgement, signalization of this intersection is not recommended. BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/09/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 1 226(74)338(786)100(172)132(115)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1.721(439)76(61)76(52) 156(111) 166(68) 67(94) 156(139) 106(63)277(98)4(5)38(24)0(3)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.0(2)2(6)63(23) 114(140) 5(2) 0(0) 116(190) 261(247)16(17)2(5)Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 2 0(1) N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS = PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 10 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions Project Description The Project proposes to develop 110 single-family residential units on 10 acres at the northwest quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive. Based on data provided to JLB, the Project is consistent with the 2035 City of Fresno General Plan. Figure 3 illustrates the latest Project Site Plan. Project Access Based on the latest Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site will be from two (2) points located along the north side of the Fancher Creek Drive extension west of Armstrong Avenue. One of the access points is located approximately 850 feet west of Armstrong Avenue and is proposed as an exit only access. The other access point is located approximately 1,200 feet west of Armstrong Avenue and is proposed as a full access. JLB analyzed the location of the proposed access points relative to the existing local roads and driveways in the Project’s vicinity. To improve the safety of the Project access points, it is recommended that appropriate corner sight distance be provided pursuant to the latest edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. With appropriate corner sight distance, the Project driveways to be constructed will be located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table III presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Single-Family Detached Housing. The proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,038 daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. Table II: Project Trip Generation Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units Trip Distribution The trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Fresno COG Project Select Zone, the existing roadway network, data provided by the developer, knowledge of the study area, engineering judgment, existing residential and commercial densities, and the 2035 City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project. Figure 4 illustrates the Project Only Trips to the study intersections. Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Total Trip Rate In Out In Out Total Trip Rate In Out In Out Total % % Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 110 d.u. 9.44 1,038 0.74 25 75 20 61 81 0.99 63 37 69 40 109 Total Project Trips 1,038 20 61 81 69 40 109 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 11 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Transit Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the transit operator in the City of Fresno. At present, there are no FAX transit routes that operate in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The closest is FAX Route 35, which runs on Clovis Avenue and Belmont Avenue, approximately 1.40 miles to the west of the proposed Project. Route 35 operates at 30-minute intervals on weekdays and 45-minute intervals on weekends and its nearest stop to the Project site is located on the north side of Belmont Avenue approximately 80 feet west of Clovis Avenue. This route provides a direct connection to the Department of Motor Vehicles, Tower District, Talking Book Library, the Post Office and the Social Security Office. Retention of the existing and expansion of future transit routes is dependent on transit ridership demand and available funding. Bikeways Currently, bike lanes exist in the vicinity to the proposed Project site along Fowler Avenue, Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. The City of Fresno “Bicycle, Pedestrian & Trails Master Plan” recommends that Class II Bike Lanes be implemented on Fancher Creek Drive. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project implement Class II bike lanes along its frontage to Fancher Creek Drive. Safe Routes to School Kindergarten through 12th grade students from the Project will be served by the Clovis Unified School District. The Clovis Unified School District provides transportation for students who live in excess of an established radius zone. The zone is a radius of 1 mile for grades Kindergarten through 6th and 2.5 miles for grades 7th through 12th. Based on the attendance area boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, elementary school students would attend Temperance-Kutner Elementary School located on the southeast corner of Olive Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. Temperance-Kutner Elementary School is located 0.75 and 0.95 miles from the nearest and farthest future home on the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of elementary school students will need to walk, bike or be driven to school. The most direct path from the Project to the Temperance-Kutner Elementary School campus would begin from the southmost end of the Project along the north side of Fancher Creek Drive. Students would proceed east along the north side of Fancher Creek Drive towards the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive. Students would then proceed north along the west side of Armstrong Avenue towards the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue. The intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is controlled by a two-way stop on the approaches of Armstrong Avenue and contains unmarked crosswalks on all approaches. It is anticipated that students would proceed to cross Belmont Avenue along the west side of Armstrong Avenue and continue north along the west side of Armstrong Avenue towards the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Harvey Avenue. The intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Harvey Avenue is controlled by a two-way stop on the approaches of Harvey Avenue and contains unmarked crosswalks on all approaches. Although there is a lack of walkways on both sides of Armstrong Avenue, it is anticipated that students would proceed to cross Harvey Avenue along the west side of Armstrong Avenue and then cross Armstrong Avenue along the north side of Harvey Avenue. Once students are positioned at the northeast corner of Armstrong Avenue and Harvey Avenue, students would proceed north along the east side of Armstrong Avenue until reaching a campus entrance. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 12 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Since the walking distance between the Project and the Temperance-Kutner Elementary School campus is approximately 0.95 miles and there is a lack of walkways in between, it is anticipated that a large percentage of elementary school students will likely be driven to school. To promote alternative modes of transportation to Temperance-Kutner Elementary School, it is recommended that the Clovis Unified School District work with the City of Fresno and County of Fresno to implement a Safe Routes to School plan and to seek grant funding to help build bikeways and walkways where they are lacking within the one-mile radius of the existing school site. Based on the attendance area boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, middle school students would attend Reyburn Intermediate School located on the southeast quadrant of Gettysburg Avenue and DeWolf Avenue. Reyburn Intermediate School is located 4.12 and 4.30 miles from the nearest and farthest future home on the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that middle school students will be bused or driven from the Project to school. Based on the attendance area boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, high school students would attend Clovis East High School located on the southeast quadrant of Gettysburg Avenue and DeWolf Avenue. Clovis East High School is located 3.97 and 4.16 miles away from the nearest and farthest future home on the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that high school students will be bused or driven from the Project to school. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 13 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Results of Existing plus Project Level of Service Analysis The Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 5 illustrates the Existing plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix F. Table III presents a summary of the Existing plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM peak period. To improve the LOS at this intersection, it is recommended that it be controlled by an all-way stop. Table III: Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1 Fowler Avenue / Belmont Avenue Signalized 25.1 C 22.7 C 2 Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue Two-Way Stop 74.5 F 24.6 C All-Way Stop (Mitigated) 17.5 C 11.4 B Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. Traffic Signal Warrants The peak hour traffic signal warrant was prepared for the unsignalized intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue in the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. This warrant is found in Appendix I. The effects of right-turning traffic from the minor approach onto the major approach were taken into account using engineering judgement pursuant to the CA MUTCD guidelines for the preparation of traffic signal warrants. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue does not satisfy the peak hour signal warrant during either peak period. Therefore, based on the failure to meet the signal warrant and engineering judgement, signalization of this intersection is not recommended. 004-057 - 04/09/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions N Not To Scale Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Project Site Plan Figure 3 BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/09/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 1 27(27)3(10)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1. 26(15) 4(3) 9(6) 2(7)5(15)8(7)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.13(9)40(24)3(9) 12(44) Tract 6191 - City of Fresno 2018 Project Only Trips Figure 4 N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PROJECT TRIPS = PM PROJECT TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/09/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 1 226(74)338(786)107(199)135(125)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1.721(439)76(61)102(67) 160(114) 175(74) 67(94) 158(146) 106(63)277(98)9(20)38(24)8(10)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.13(11)42(30)63(23) 114(140) 8(11) 12(44) 116(190) 261(247)16(17)2(5)Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Existing plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 5 0(1) N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS = PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 17 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions Description of Approved and Pipeline Projects Approved and Pipeline Projects consist of developments that are either under construction, built but not fully occupied, are not built but have final site development review (SDR) approval, or for which the lead agency or responsible agencies have knowledge of. The City of Fresno, County of Fresno and Caltrans staff were consulted throughout the preparation of this TIA regarding approved and/or known projects that could potentially impact the study intersections. JLB staff conducted a reconnaissance of the surrounding area to confirm the near term projects. Subsequently, it was agreed that the projects listed in Table IV were approved, near approval, or in the pipeline within the proximity of the proposed Project. The trip generation listed in Table IV is that which is anticipated to be added to the streets and highways by these projects between the time of the preparation of this report and five years after buildout of the proposed Project. As shown in Table IV, the total trip generation for the near term projects is 114,164 daily trips, 9,164 AM peak hour trips and 11,158 PM peak hour trips. Figure 6 illustrates the location of the approved, near approval, or pipeline projects and their combined trip assignment to the study intersections and segments under the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 18 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Table IV: Near Term Projects’ Trip Generation Approved Project Location Approved or Pipeline Project Name Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A TT 5171 (portion of)1 1,086 85 114 B TT 5341 (portion of)2 1,322 104 139 C TT 54242 1,369 107 144 D TT 54272 3,238 254 340 E TT 54642 1,746 137 183 F TT 54981 755 59 79 G TT 5531 (portion of)2 1,189 93 125 H TT 55922 2,436 191 255 I TT 56052 1,284 101 135 J TT 5626 (portion of)1 387 30 41 K TT 56382 4,295 337 450 L TT 5717 (portion of)3 7,834 489 776 M TT 59133 1,029 81 108 N TT 59531 887 70 93 O TT 5998 (portion of)1 736 58 77 P TT 6095 (portion of)1 765 60 80 Q TT 61011 1,048 82 110 R TT 6107 (portion of)1 1,605 126 168 S TT 6112 (portion of)1 519 41 54 T TT 6114 (portion of)1 878 69 92 U TT 61303 1,650 275 314 V TT 6143 (portion of)1 1,520 119 159 W TT 62144 1,982 155 208 X CUSD Elementary School1 1,323 469 119 Y Fancher Creek Town Center (portion of)1 62,596 3,251 5,942 Z Neighborhood Shopping Center (portion of)3 2,065 148 159 AA Sanger Education Center1 7,597 2,135 640 AB Sunnyside Market1 1,023 38 54 Total Approved and Pipeline Project Trips 114,164 9,164 11,158 Note: 1 = Trip Generation prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. based on readily available information 2 = Trip Generation based on Peters Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report 3 = Trip Generation based on TJKM Traffic Impact Analysis Report 4 = Trip Generation based on JLB Traffic Impact Analysis Report www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 19 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Results of Near Term plus Project Level of Service Analysis The Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 7 illustrates the Near Term plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix G. Table V presents a summary of the Near Term plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the intersections of Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at the intersections projected to exceed their LOS threshold, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented. Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue o Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane. Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue o Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound right-turn lane; o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing; and o Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lane. It should be noted that between the Existing Traffic Conditions and the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenarios, the Project accounts for 0.9 percent of the daily trips, 0.9 percent of the AM peak hour trips and 1.0 percent of the PM peak hour trips of growth in traffic, while the rest can be attributable to the near term projects. Therefore, one can deduce that the majority of the mitigation measures presented under this scenario may not be necessary immediately upon completion of the proposed Project. However, if all of the near term projects are completed close to the completion date of the proposed Project, the detailed recommended improvements presented under this scenario may be necessary in order to improve the LOS to the City's target LOS threshold. Table V: Near Term plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1 Fowler Avenue / Belmont Avenue Signalized 58.5 E 54.7 D Signalized (Mitigated) 53.3 D 52.0 D 2 Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue Two-Way Stop >120.0 F >120.0 F Signalized (Mitigated) 51.7 D 23.8 C Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 20 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Traffic Signal Warrants Peak hour traffic signal warrants, as appropriate, were prepared for the unsignalized intersections in the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are found in Appendix I. The effects of right-turning traffic from the minor approach onto the major approach were taken into account using engineering judgement pursuant to the CA MUTCD guidelines for the preparation of traffic signal warrants. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue satisfies the peak hour signal warrant during both peak periods. Based on the signal warrant and engineering judgement, signalization of this intersection is recommended. BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/10/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions N Not To Scale 1 23(4)412(371)253(76)216(186)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1.386(303)94(84)80(268) 87(249) 110(265) 81(80) 230(69) 14(6)71(74)133(88)5(35)31(102)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.136(40)21(28)57(20) 173(142) 150(26) 10(27) 79(196) 40(84) Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment Figure 6 LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM NEAR TERM TRIPS = PM NEAR TERM TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN #= NEAR TERM PROJECT LOCATION A BCD F H IL X EG K MN O P Q R T U V Y AB J S W Z AA BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/10/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 1 229(78)750(1157)360(275)351(311)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1.1107(742)170(145)182(335) 247(363) 285(339) 148(174) 388(215) 120(69)348(172)142(108)43(59)39(112)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.149(51)63(58)120(43) 287(282) 158(37) 22(71) 195(386) 301(331)16(17)2(5)Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Near Term plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 7 0(1) N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS = PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 23 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions The Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place with one exception. The Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that Fancher Creek Drive will extend southwest to connect to Fowler Avenue by the year 2035. Considering the potential changes in the existing roadway network, it is projected that travel patterns and volumes may differ from what is anticipated for the immediate Project buildout. Figure 8 illustrates the 2035 Project Only Trips to the study intersections. Results of Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Level of Service Analysis The Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that Fancher Creek Drive will connect to Fowler Avenue by the year 2035. Figure 9 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix H. Table VI presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the intersections of Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at the intersections projected to exceed their LOS threshold, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented. Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue o Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; o Add a second westbound left-turn lane; o Add a second westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Fowler Avenue; and o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lanes. Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue o Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a second westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Armstrong Avenue; o Add a westbound right-turn lane; o Implement overlap phasing of the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left-turn phase; o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and o Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lanes. Table VI: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1 Fowler Avenue / Belmont Avenue Signalized 96.7 F 79.3 E Signalized (Mitigated) 48.9 D 47.2 D 2 Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue Two-Way Stop >120.0 F >120.0 F Signalized (Mitigated) 54.0 D 34.0 C Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls. LOS for two-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 24 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Traffic Signal Warrants Peak hour traffic signal warrants, as appropriate, were prepared for the unsignalized intersections in the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are found in Appendix I. The effects of right-turning traffic from the minor approach onto the major approach were taken into account using engineering judgement pursuant to the CA MUTCD guidelines for the preparation of traffic signal warrants. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue satisfies the peak hour signal warrant during both peak periods. Based on the signal warrant and engineering judgement, signalization of this intersection is recommended. Project’s Trip Assignment to Caltrans Facilities The 2035 Project Only Trip assignment to the interchange of Fowler Avenue at State Route 180 is illustrated in Figure 10. BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/09/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 1 24(13)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1. 12(7) 3(2) 2(3)4(18)3(2)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.16(10)16(10)2(4) 5(17) Tract 6191 - City of Fresno 2035 Project Only Trips Figure 8 N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PROJECT TRIPS = PM PROJECT TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN BELMONT AVE KINGS CANYON AVEARGYLE AVEARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVE McKINLEY AVE FOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/10/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 1 2194(220)750(1157)357(261)348(301)Belmont AveFowler AveFowler AvenueBelmont Ave &1.1107(742)175(199)168(327) 628(429) 276(333) 148(312) 417(460) 292(206)517(245)143(202)130(169)92(161)Belmont AveArmstrong AveArmstrong AveBelmont Ave &2.152(236)242(166)216(189) 365(282) 157(154) 174(161) 231(386) 444(423)16(17)2(5)Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 9 0(1) N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS = PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS XX (XX) = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION = STOP SIGN ARMSTRONG AVETULARE AVE FLORADORA AVE OLIVE AVEFOWLER AVEFANCHER CREEK DR004-057 - 04/10/18 - JR 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93710 PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: info@JLBtraffic.com, www.JLBtraffic.com Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions 12(7) Tract 6191 - City of Fresno Fowler Avenue at State Route 180 Interchange - 2035 Project Only Trips Figure 10 N Not To Scale LEGEND = STUDY INTERSECTION# = PROJECT LOCATION = FUTURE ROADWAY = AM PROJECT TRIPS = PM PROJECT TRIPS XX (XX) 1 2 4(13) 4(13)4(13)12(7)0(0)12(7)12(7)12(7) 0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0) 0(0 ) 0(0 ) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 28 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Queuing Analysis Table VII provides a queue length summary for left- and right-turn lanes at the study intersections under all study scenarios. The queuing analyses for the study intersections are contained in the LOS worksheets for the respective scenarios. Appendix D contains the methodologies used to evaluate these intersections. Queuing analyses were completed using Sim Traffic output information. Synchro provides both 50th and 95th percentile maximum queue lengths (in feet). According to the Synchro manual, “the 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle and the 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile volumes.” The queues shown on Table VII are the 95th percentile queue lengths for the respective lane movements. The Highway Design Manual (HDM) provides guidance for determining deceleration lengths for the left- and right-turn lanes based on design speeds. Per the HDM criteria, “tapers for right-turn lanes are usually un-necessary since the main line traffic need not be shifted laterally to provide space for the right-turn lane. If, in some rare instances, a lateral shift were needed, the approach taper would use the same formula as for a left-turn lane.” Therefore, a bay taper length pursuant to the Caltrans HDM would need to be added, as necessary, to the recommended storage lengths presented in Table VII. Based on the SimTraffic output files and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the storage capacity for the following be considered for the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions. Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue o Consider setting the storage capacity of the eastbound dual left-turn lanes to 275 feet. o Consider setting the storage capacity of the eastbound right-turn lane to 250 feet. o Consider setting the storage capacity of the westbound right-turn lane to 275 feet. o The existing storage capacity of the northbound left-turn lane is projected to exceed that available for the AM peak period in the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. However, it is not possible to increase the storage capacity of the northbound left-turn lane without reducing the existing storage capacity of the southbound left-turn pocket for the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Grant Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that this movement be monitored. o The existing storage capacity of the northbound right-turn lane is projected to be exceeded by the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. However, it is recommended that the City monitor this movement to determine if additional storage is warranted. o The existing storage capacity of the southbound right-turn lane is projected to be exceeded by the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. However, it is recommended that the City monitor this movement to determine if additional storage is warranted. Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue o The existing storage capacity of the eastbound left-turn lane is projected to be exceeded by the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. However, it is recommended that the City monitor this movement to determine if additional storage is warranted. o Consider setting the storage capacity of the westbound right-turn lane to 125 feet. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 29 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 o The existing storage capacity of the northbound right-turn lane is projected to exceed that available for the PM peak in the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. While there are no constraints to increasing the storage capacity of this movement, it is recommended that this movement be monitored to determine if additional storage is warranted. o The existing storage capacity of the southbound left-turn lane is projected to be exceeded by the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. However, it is recommended that the City monitor this movement to determine if additional storage is warranted. Table VII: Queuing Analysis ID Intersection Existing Queue Storage Length (ft.) Existing Existing plus Project Near Term plus Project Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Avenue / Avenue EB Left 225 117 83 235 81 208 100 * * EB Dual Lefts * * * * * * * 283 132 EB Right * * * * * 88 126 78 260 WB Left 250 200 84 183 112 400 360 * * WB Dual Lefts * * * * * * * 182 231 WB Right 150 47 34 59 43 271 239 131 145 NB Left 250 90 108 91 97 350 289 350 321 NB Right 160 101 70 100 66 235 234 235 170 SB Dual Lefts 275 82 96 85 109 346 313 288 309 SB Right 120 25 91 30 124 124 170 170 170 2 Avenue / Avenue EB Left 250 72 54 82 75 266 254 370 EB Right >500 0 0 17 28 22 31 87 252 WB Left 250 6 0 21 20 166 64 182 192 WB Right * * * * * 66 27 101 110 NB Left 300 6 18 41 41 80 77 290 182 NB Right 130 0 8 11 14 22 50 42 138 SB Left 250 38 40 38 32 69 63 172 324 SB Right >500 80 40 88 43 121 78 150 69 Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 30 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Project’s Pro-Rata Fair Share of Future Transportation Improvements The Project’s fair share percentage impact to study intersections projected to fall below their LOS threshold and which are not covered by an existing impact fee program is provided in Table VIII. The Project’s fair share percentage impacts were calculated pursuant to the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The Project’s pro-rata fair shares were calculated utilizing the Existing volumes, 2035 Project Only Trips and Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project volumes. Figure 2 illustrates the Existing traffic volumes, Figure 8 illustrates the 2035 Project Only Trips, and Figure 9 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project traffic volumes. Since the critical peak period for the study facilities was determined to be during the PM peak, the PM peak volumes are utilized to determine the Project’s pro- rata fair share. It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table VIII for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. However, fair share contributions should only be made for those facilities or portion thereof currently not funded by the responsible agencies roadway impact fee program(s), as appropriate. For those improvements not presently covered by local and regional roadway impact fee programs, it is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share. Payment of the Project’s equitable fair share in addition to the local and regional impact fee programs would satisfy the Project’s traffic mitigation measures. This study does not provide construction costs for the recommended mitigation measures; therefore, if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is recommended that the developer work with the City of Fresno to develop the estimated construction cost. Table VIII: Project’s Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements ID Intersection Existing Traffic Volumes (PM Peak) Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Volumes (PM Peak) 2035 Project Only Trips (PM Peak) Project's Fair Share (%) 1 Fowler Avenue / Belmont Avenue 2,197 4,970 25 0.90% 2 Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue 740 2,774 61 3.00% Note: Project Fair Share = ((2035 Project Only Trips) / (Cumulative Year 2035 + Project Traffic Volumes - Existing Traffic Volumes)) x 100 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 31 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed Project are presented below. Existing Traffic Conditions At present, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is operating at LOS E during the AM peak period. Although this intersection is recorded to operate at an unacceptable LOS, the operations at this intersection are considered adverse but not significant. Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions To improve the safety of the Project access points, it is recommended that appropriate corner sight distance be provided pursuant to the latest edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. With appropriate corner sight distance, the Project driveways to be constructed will be located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network. At buildout, the Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,038 daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. It is recommended that the Project implement Class II bike lanes along its frontage to Fancher Creek Drive. To promote alternative modes of transportation to Temperance-Kutner Elementary School, it is recommended that the Clovis Unified School District work with the City of Fresno and County of Fresno to implement a Safe Routes to School plan and to seek grant funding to help build bikeways and walkways where they are lacking within the one-mile radius of the existing school site. Under this scenario, the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM peak period. To improve the LOS at this intersection, it is recommended that it be controlled by an all-way stop. Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions The total trip generation for the near term projects is 114,164 daily trips, 9,164 AM peak hour trips and 11,158 PM peak hour trips. Under this scenario, the intersections of Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at the intersections projected to exceed their LOS threshold, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented. o Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane; Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane. o Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; Add a westbound right-turn lane; Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing; and Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lane. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 32 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 The Project accounts for 0.9 percent of the daily trips, 0.9 percent of the AM peak hour trips and 1.0 percent of the PM peak hour trips of growth in traffic, while the rest can be attributable to the near term projects. Therefore, one can deduce that the majority of the mitigation measures presented under this scenario may not be necessary immediately upon completion of the proposed Project. Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions Under this scenario, the intersections of Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at the intersections projected to exceed their LOS threshold, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented. o Fowler Avenue and Belmont Avenue Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; Add a second westbound left-turn lane; Add a second westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Fowler Avenue; and Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lanes. o Armstrong Avenue and Belmont Avenue Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; Add a second westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Armstrong Avenue; Add a westbound right-turn lane; Implement overlap phasing of the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left-turn phase; Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lanes. Queuing Analysis It is recommended that the City consider left- and right-turn lane storage lengths as indicated in the Queuing Analysis. Project’s Equitable Fair Share It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable Fair Share as presented in Table VIII. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 33 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Tract 6191 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis April 11, 2018 Study Participants JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel: Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager Susana Maciel, EIT Engineer I/II Alan Miao, EIT Engineer I/II Javier Rios Engineer I/II Jove Alcazar Engineer I/II Persons Consulted: Lorren Smith Habour & Associates Jill Gormley, PE City of Fresno Harpreet Kooner County of Fresno David Padilla Caltrans Kai Han, TE Fresno COG Lang Yu Fresno COG References 1. City of Fresno, 2035 General Plan. 2. County of Fresno, 2000 General Plan. 3. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Caltrans, dated December 2002. 4. Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Washington D.C., Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 5. 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, November 7, 2014. 6. Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, Caltrans, December 16, 2016 http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | A Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix A: Scope of Work www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 P a g e | 1 Traffic Engineering, transportation Planning & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 February 26, 2018 Mrs. Jill Gormley, P.E. Traffic Engineer City of Fresno 2600 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721-3616 Via Email Only: Jill.Gormley@fresno.gov Subject: Proposed Draft Scope of Work for the Preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for Tentative Tract 6191 at the Northwest quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive in the City of Fresno (JLB Project 004-057) Dear Mrs. Gormley, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby submits this Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for Tentative Tract Map 6191. The project will be located at the northwest quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Fancher Creek Drive in the City of Fresno. Per information provided to JLB, the project is consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan. An aerial of the project vicinity and the project site plan are shown in Exhibits A and B respectively. The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate the potential on and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. In order to evaluate the on and off-site traffic impacts of the proposed project, JLB proposes the following draft scope of work. Scope of Work • Request a Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) traffic forecast model run for the project (Select Zone Analysis) which will include the project and the streets to be analyzed. The Fresno COG traffic forecasting model will be used to forecast traffic volumes for the Base Year and Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project scenarios. • JLB will evaluate existing and forecast levels of service (LOS) at the study intersection(s). JLB will use HCM 2010 methodologies within Synchro to perform this analysis for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. JLB will identify the causes of poor LOS. • Evaluate onsite circulation and provide recommendations as necessary to improve circulation to the site and within the project site. • As necessary obtain recent (less than two years) or schedule and conduct new traffic counts at the study facility (ies). • Perform a site visit to observe existing traffic conditions, especially during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Existing roadway conditions, including geometrics and traffic controls, will be verified. • Forecast trip distribution based on turn count information, input from Fresno COG staff, proposed school boundaries, and knowledge of the existing and planned circulation network in the vicinity of the project. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 P a g e | 2 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mrs. Gormley Tentative Tract 6191 TIA Draft Scope of Work February 26, 2018 • Prepare California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) peak hour signal warrants for un-signalized study intersections. • JLB will conduct a qualitative safe routes to school evaluation from the Project site to the K-12 school(s) which would most likely serve the Project on opening day. • JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned transit routes in the project’s vicinity. • JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned bikeways in the project’s vicinity. Study Scenarios: 1. Existing traffic conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any); 2. Existing plus Project traffic conditions with proposed mitigation measures (if any); 3. Cumulative Near Term plus Project (include pending and approved projects) traffic conditions with mitigation measures (if any); and 4. Cumulative Year (2035) plus Project traffic conditions with mitigation measures (if any). Weekday peak hours to be analyzed: 1. 7-9 a.m. peak hour 2. 4-6 p.m. peak hour Study Intersections: 1. Belmont Avenue / Fowler Avenue 2. Belmont Avenue / Armstrong Avenue Queuing analysis is included in the proposed scope of work for the study intersection(s) listed above under all study scenarios. This analysis will be utilized to recommend minimum storage lengths for left and right turn lanes at all study intersections. Study Segments: 1. None Project Only Trip Assignment to the Following State Facilities: 1. SR 180 / Fowler Avenue Access to the Project Access to and from the project site is primarily from two private local streets. The two private local streets would connect to Fancher Creek Drive at approximately 800 and 1,100 feet west of Armstrong Avenue respectively. The access point closest to Armstrong Avenue is proposed as an exit only, while the second access point is proposed as the main entrance and exit and is proposed as a full access point. Additional project details are found on Exhibit B. Trip Generation Below you will find the trip generation table for the proposed project pursuant to the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual with trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Housing units. At build-out the Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,038 daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 P a g e | 3 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mrs. Gormley Tentative Tract 6191 TIA Draft Scope of Work February 26, 2018 Table I: Project Only Trip Generation Land Use (ITE CODE) Size Unit Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Rate Total Trip Rate In : Out In Out Total Trip Rate In : Out In Out Total % % Single Family Detached Housing (210) 110 d.u. 9.44 1,038 0.74 25 : 75 20 61 81 0.99 63 : 37 69 40 109 Total Project Trips 1,038 20 61 81 69 40 109 Near Term Projects to be Included Based on our local knowledge of the study area, consultation with City of Fresno Planning & Development staff, JLB proposes to include projects in the vicinity of the proposed project under the Near Term plus Project Analysis. The projects proposed to be included in the Near Term Scenario are: Project Name General Location 1. TT 5171 (portion) SW corner of Clovis/Church 2. TT 5341 (portion) SE corner of Clinton/Temperance 3. TT 5424 NE corner of Clinton/Armstrong 4. TT 5427 (portion) NW corner of Shields/Temperance 5. TT 5464 SW corner of Hamilton/Temperance 6. TT 5498 NE corner of Peach/Church 7. TT 5531 SW corner of California/Temperance 8. TT 5592 SW corner of Shields/Locan 9. TT 5605 NE corner of DeWolf/Gould Canal 10. TT 5626 (portion) SE corner of Hamilton/Fowler 11. TT 5638 NW corner of Church/Armstrong 12. TT 5717 (portion) NW corner of Armstrong/Clinton 13. TT 5913 NE corner of California/Armstrong 14. TT 5953 NE corner of Butler/Armstrong 15. TT 5998 (portion) NW corner of Dakota/Leonard 16. TT 6067 NE corner of Shields/Locan 17. TT 6095 SE corner of California/Armstrong 18. TT 6101 SE corner of Dakota/Leonard 19. TT 6107 (portion of) SW corner of Shaw/Highland 20. TT 6112 (portion of) NE corner of Temperance/Gould Canal 21. TT 6114 (portion of) NW corner of Dakota/Leonard 22. TT 6130 SE corner of Fowler/Belmont 23. TT 6143 (portion of) NE corner of Clinton/Fowler 24. TT 6214 SE Corner of Clinton/Fowler 25. C-09-106 (portion) SW corner of Shields/Armstrong 26. Fancher Creek (portion) Various Locations south of SR 180 & east of Clovis Avenue 27. Sunnyside Market NE Corner of Belmont and Temperance 28. CUSD Elementary School NE Corner of Fowler and McKinley Other Near Term Projects the City, County or Caltrans has knowledge and for which it is anticipated that said project(s) is/are projected to be whole or partially built by the Near Term Project Year 2020. City, www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 P a g e | 4 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mrs. Gormley Tentative Tract 6191 TIA Draft Scope of Work February 26, 2018 County and Caltrans as appropriate would provide JLB with project details such as a project description, location, proposed land uses with breakdowns and type of residential units and amount of square footages for non-residential uses. The above scope of work is based on our understanding of this project and our experience with similar Traffic Impact Analysis projects. In the absence of comments by March 19, 2018, it will be assumed that the above scope of work is acceptable to the agency (ies) that have not submitted any comments to the proposed TIA scope of work. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (559) 570-8991 or by email at jbenavides@JLBtraffic.com. Sincerely, Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E. President cc: Harpreet Kooner, County of Fresno David Padilla, Caltrans Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004-057 Tract 6191 TIA\Draft Scope of Work\L02262018 Draft Scope of Work.docx www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 P a g e | 5 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mrs. Gormley Tentative Tract 6191 TIA Draft Scope of Work February 26, 2018 Exhibt A – Aerial www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 P a g e | 6 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mrs. Gormley Tentative Tract 6191 TIA Draft Scope of Work February 26, 2018 Exhibt B – Site Plan jmg David Padilla,Associate Transportation Planner Office of Planning &Local Assistance 1352 W.Olive Avenue Fresno,CA 93778 2616 Office:(559)444 2493,Fax:(559)445 5875 District 6 This email has been flagged as containing one or more attachments from an outside source. Please check the senders email address carefully. If you were not expecting to receive an email with attachments, please DO NOT open the file. Forward the email to SPAM "SPAM@co.fresno.ca.us" and delete it. http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | B Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix B: Traffic Counts File Name : 4.3.18 Fowler Belmont Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted - Bank 1 FOWLER Southbound BELMONT Westbound FOWLER Northbound BELMONT Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 53 70 3 0 126 17 18 11 0 46 14 129 40 0 183 23 33 13 0 69 424 07:15 AM 28 67 3 0 98 28 32 26 1 87 15 190 28 0 233 20 37 7 0 64 482 07:30 AM 30 91 4 0 125 46 41 9 0 96 18 211 43 0 272 37 35 9 0 81 574 07:45 AM 37 89 13 2 141 48 43 22 0 113 21 155 36 0 212 23 49 20 0 92 558 Total 148 317 23 2 490 139 134 68 1 342 68 685 147 0 900 103 154 49 0 306 2038 08:00 AM 21 91 6 0 118 44 40 19 0 103 24 165 25 0 214 26 35 31 0 92 527 08:15 AM 33 89 10 0 132 38 25 11 0 74 18 139 7 0 164 12 12 20 0 44 414 08:30 AM 15 77 8 0 100 16 23 14 0 53 16 123 11 0 150 17 10 8 0 35 338 08:45 AM 12 58 4 1 75 15 10 6 0 31 13 81 4 0 98 6 16 10 0 32 236 Total 81 315 28 1 425 113 98 50 0 261 71 508 47 0 626 61 73 69 0 203 1515 ****** 04:00 PM 36 176 13 1 226 12 15 12 0 39 13 106 28 0 147 13 35 10 0 58 470 04:15 PM 45 169 10 0 224 20 24 21 0 65 16 97 27 0 140 14 27 22 0 63 492 04:30 PM 31 144 8 0 183 32 36 21 0 89 18 109 29 0 156 15 40 20 0 75 503 04:45 PM 42 194 16 4 256 18 34 7 0 59 17 110 33 0 160 17 36 16 0 69 544 Total 154 683 47 5 889 82 109 61 0 252 64 422 117 0 603 59 138 68 0 265 2009 05:00 PM 47 160 17 0 224 19 30 29 0 78 15 107 33 0 155 14 34 20 0 68 525 05:15 PM 51 245 18 1 315 23 29 12 0 64 14 119 22 0 155 10 38 34 0 82 616 05:30 PM 49 187 23 1 260 9 18 4 0 31 20 103 27 0 150 22 31 24 0 77 518 05:45 PM 41 160 15 3 219 16 20 13 0 49 22 107 20 0 149 18 22 20 0 60 477 Total 188 752 73 5 1018 67 97 58 0 222 71 436 102 0 609 64 125 98 0 287 2136 Grand Total 571 2067 171 13 2822 401 438 237 1 1077 274 2051 413 0 2738 287 490 284 0 1061 7698 Apprch %20.2 73.2 6.1 0.5 37.2 40.7 22 0.1 10 74.9 15.1 0 27 46.2 26.8 0 Total %7.4 26.9 2.2 0.2 36.7 5.2 5.7 3.1 0 14 3.6 26.6 5.4 0 35.6 3.7 6.4 3.7 0 13.8 Unshifted 485 2067 2051 % Unshifted 84.9 100 100 100 97 99 100 100 100 99.6 94.2 100 100 0 99.4 99.7 100 100 0 99.9 98.6 Bank 1 86 0 0 0 86 4 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 1 107 % Bank 1 15.1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0.4 5.8 0 0 0 0.6 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 1.4 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com File Name : 4.3.18 Fowler Belmont Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 2 FOWLER Southbound BELMONT Westbound FOWLER Northbound BELMONT Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 28 67 3 0 98 28 32 26 1 87 15 190 28 0 233 20 37 7 0 64 482 07:30 AM 30 91 4 0 125 46 41 9 0 96 18 211 43 0 272 37 35 9 0 81 574 07:45 AM 37 89 13 2 141 48 43 22 0 113 21 155 36 0 212 23 49 20 0 92 558 08:00 AM 21 91 6 0 118 44 40 19 0 103 24 165 25 0 214 26 35 31 0 92 527 Total Volume 116 338 26 2 482 166 156 76 1 399 78 721 132 0 931 106 156 67 0 329 2141 % App. Total 24.1 70.1 5.4 0.4 41.6 39.1 19 0.3 8.4 77.4 14.2 0 32.2 47.4 20.4 0 PHF .784 .929 .500 .250 .855 .865 .907 .731 .250 .883 .813 .854 .767 .000 .856 .716 .796 .540 .000 .894 .932 FOWLER BELMONT BELMONT FOWLER Right 26 Thru 338 Left 116 Peds 2 InOut Total 903 482 1385 Right76 Thru156 Left166 Peds1 OutTotalIn404 399 803 Left 78 Thru 721 Right 132 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 571 931 1502 Left106 Thru156 Right67 Peds0 TotalOutIn260 329 589 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Unshifted Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com File Name : 4.3.18 Fowler Belmont Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 3 FOWLER Southbound BELMONT Westbound FOWLER Northbound BELMONT Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 42 194 16 4 256 18 34 7 0 59 17 110 33 0 160 17 36 16 0 69 544 05:00 PM 47 160 17 0 224 19 30 29 0 78 15 107 33 0 155 14 34 20 0 68 525 05:15 PM 51 245 18 1 315 23 29 12 0 64 14 119 22 0 155 10 38 34 0 82 616 05:30 PM 49 187 23 1 260 9 18 4 0 31 20 103 27 0 150 22 31 24 0 77 518 Total Volume 189 786 74 6 1055 69 111 52 0 232 66 439 115 0 620 63 139 94 0 296 2203 % App. Total 17.9 74.5 7 0.6 29.7 47.8 22.4 0 10.6 70.8 18.5 0 21.3 47 31.8 0 PHF .926 .802 .804 .375 .837 .750 .816 .448 .000 .744 .825 .922 .871 .000 .969 .716 .914 .691 .000 .902 .894 FOWLER BELMONT BELMONT FOWLER Right 74 Thru 786 Left 189 Peds 6 InOut Total 554 1055 1609 Right52 Thru111 Left69 Peds0 OutTotalIn443 232 675 Left 66 Thru 439 Right 115 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 949 620 1569 Left63 Thru139 Right94 Peds0 TotalOutIn251 296 547 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM Unshifted Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com File Name : 4.3.18 Fowler Belmont Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 FOWLER Southbound BELMONT Westbound FOWLER Northbound BELMONT Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 15 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 07:15 AM 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 07:30 AM 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 07:45 AM 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Total 27 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 29 08:00 AM 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 08:15 AM 9 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 08:30 AM 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 08:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 21 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 24 ****** 04:00 PM 5 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 04:15 PM 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 04:30 PM 7 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 Total 19 0 0 0 19 3 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 29 05:00 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 05:15 PM 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 05:30 PM 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 05:45 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 19 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 25 Grand Total 86 0 0 0 86 4 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 1 107 Apprch %100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Total %80.4 0 0 0 80.4 3.7 0 0 0 3.7 15 0 0 0 15 0.9 0 0 0 0.9 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com File Name : 4.3.18 Belmont Armstrong Site Code : 00004318 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted - Bank 1 Belmont Southbound Armstrong Westbound Belmont Northbound Armstrong Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 6 2 25 1 34 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 38 59 0 0 97 145 07:15 AM 7 1 56 0 64 1 27 6 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 43 28 0 0 71 169 07:30 AM 13 1 72 0 86 1 30 13 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 68 36 0 0 104 235 07:45 AM 13 0 75 0 88 2 36 25 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 88 29 0 0 117 268 Total 39 4 228 1 272 4 107 44 0 155 1 0 0 0 1 237 152 0 0 389 817 08:00 AM 5 2 74 0 81 1 21 19 0 41 1 0 0 0 1 62 23 0 0 85 208 08:15 AM 8 2 40 0 50 1 31 2 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 0 0 36 120 08:30 AM 6 0 22 0 28 2 32 5 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 10 19 0 0 29 96 08:45 AM 3 1 16 0 20 1 9 0 0 10 0 0 2 0 2 12 21 0 0 33 65 Total 22 5 152 0 179 5 93 26 0 124 1 0 2 0 3 94 89 0 0 183 489 ****** 04:00 PM 12 1 13 1 27 1 24 2 0 27 0 2 1 0 3 40 49 0 0 89 146 04:15 PM 13 1 19 0 33 0 31 6 0 37 2 1 1 0 4 61 33 0 0 94 168 04:30 PM 10 2 31 0 43 1 35 6 0 42 2 0 1 0 3 49 47 0 0 96 184 04:45 PM 6 3 14 0 23 0 37 3 0 40 2 1 1 0 4 63 53 0 0 116 183 Total 41 7 77 1 126 2 127 17 0 146 6 4 4 0 14 213 182 0 0 395 681 05:00 PM 4 0 26 0 30 0 41 8 0 49 0 1 1 0 2 60 50 0 0 110 191 05:15 PM 4 0 27 0 31 1 27 6 0 34 2 0 0 0 2 75 40 0 0 115 182 05:30 PM 6 0 8 0 14 1 24 6 0 31 0 1 1 0 2 61 37 0 0 98 145 05:45 PM 8 0 22 0 30 0 19 8 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 50 28 0 0 78 135 Total 22 0 83 0 105 2 111 28 0 141 2 2 2 0 6 246 155 0 0 401 653 Grand Total 124 16 540 2 682 13 438 115 0 566 10 6 8 0 24 790 578 0 0 1368 2640 Apprch %18.2 2.3 79.2 0.3 2.3 77.4 20.3 0 41.7 25 33.3 0 57.7 42.3 0 0 Total %4.7 0.6 20.5 0.1 25.8 0.5 16.6 4.4 0 21.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0 0.9 29.9 21.9 0 0 51.8 Unshifted 124 16 540 2 682 13 438 115 0 566 10 6 8 0 24 787 578 0 0 1365 2637 % Unshifted Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com File Name : 4.3.18 Belmont Armstrong Site Code : 00004318 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 2 Belmont Southbound Armstrong Westbound Belmont Northbound Armstrong Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 7 1 56 0 64 1 27 6 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 43 28 0 0 71 169 07:30 AM 13 1 72 0 86 1 30 13 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 68 36 0 0 104 235 07:45 AM 13 0 75 0 88 2 36 25 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 88 29 0 0 117 268 08:00 AM 5 2 74 0 81 1 21 19 0 41 1 0 0 0 1 62 23 0 0 85 208 Total Volume 38 4 277 0 319 5 114 63 0 182 2 0 0 0 2 261 116 0 0 377 880 % App. Total 11.9 1.3 86.8 0 2.7 62.6 34.6 0 100 0 0 0 69.2 30.8 0 0 PHF .731 .500 .923 .000 .906 .625 .792 .630 .000 .722 .500 .000 .000 .000 .500 .741 .806 .000 .000 .806 .821 Belmont Armstrong Armstrong Belmont Right 277 Thru 4 Left 38 Peds 0 InOut Total 324 319 643 Right63 Thru114 Left5 Peds0 OutTotalIn154 182 336 Left 2 Thru 0 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 9 2 11 Left261 Thru116 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn393 377 770 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Unshifted Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com File Name : 4.3.18 Belmont Armstrong Site Code : 00004318 Start Date : 4/3/2018 Page No : 3 Belmont Southbound Armstrong Westbound Belmont Northbound Armstrong Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 10 2 31 0 43 1 35 6 0 42 2 0 1 0 3 49 47 0 0 96 184 04:45 PM 6 3 14 0 23 0 37 3 0 40 2 1 1 0 4 63 53 0 0 116 183 05:00 PM 4 0 26 0 30 0 41 8 0 49 0 1 1 0 2 60 50 0 0 110 191 05:15 PM 4 0 27 0 31 1 27 6 0 34 2 0 0 0 2 75 40 0 0 115 182 Total Volume 24 5 98 0 127 2 140 23 0 165 6 2 3 0 11 247 190 0 0 437 740 % App. Total 18.9 3.9 77.2 0 1.2 84.8 13.9 0 54.5 18.2 27.3 0 56.5 43.5 0 0 PHF .600 .417 .790 .000 .738 .500 .854 .719 .000 .842 .750 .500 .750 .000 .688 .823 .896 .000 .000 .942 .969 Belmont Armstrong Armstrong Belmont Right 98 Thru 5 Left 24 Peds 0 InOut Total 272 127 399 Right23 Thru140 Left2 Peds0 OutTotalIn217 165 382 Left 6 Thru 2 Right 3 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 7 11 18 Left247 Thru190 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn244 437 681 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Unshifted Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 (559) 570-8991 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning & Parking Solutions www.JLBtraffic.com http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | C Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix C: Traffic Modeling www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 1 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 March 2, 2018 Kai Han, TE Council of Fresno County Governments 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93721 Via E-mail Only: khan@fresnocog.org Subject: Traffic Modeling Request for the Preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for Tract 6191 Located on the Southwest Quadrant of Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue in the City of Fresno (JLB Project 004-057) Dear Mr. Han, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby requests traffic modeling for the Project described below. Tract 6191 (Project) proposes to build a 110-unit single family subdivision on 10.00 net acres on the southwest quadrant of Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue in the City of Fresno. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project is consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan. An aerial of the Project vicinity is shown in Exhibit A while the Project site plan is shown in Exhibit B. The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate the potential on- and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. Scenarios: The following scenarios are requested: 1. Base Year 2018 (with Link and TAZ modifications) 2. Year 2018 plus Project Select Zone (with Link and TAZ modifications) 3. Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Select Zone (with Link and TAZ modifications) 4. Differences between model runs 3 and 1 above Changes and/or additions to the Model Network or TAZ’s JLB reviewed the Fresno COG model network for the Base Year 2018 and Cumulative Year 2035. Based on this review, JLB requests the following link and TAZ Network modifications. Details on the requested Link and TAZ modifications for Base Year 2018 and Cumulative Year 2035 are illustrated in Exhibit C. LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (For Base Year 2018 and Year 2018 plus Project Select Zone Scenarios): 1. Modify Fowler Avenue to increase the number of lanes between Node 5704 and Belmont Avenue to two lanes in each direction. 2. Modify Armstrong Avenue to increase the number of southbound lanes between Node 12146 and Belmont Avenue to two lanes. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 2 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 3. Modify Belmont Avenue to reduce the number of westbound lanes between Clovis Avenue an Fowler Avenue to one lane. 4. Eliminate Tulare Avenue between Clovis Avenue and North Argyle Ave (TAZ 7045). 5. Modify Temperance Avenue as follows: a. Increase the number of lanes between Node 8292 and Kings Canyon Road to two lanes in each direction. 6. Modify the State Route 180 westbound onramp to increase the number of lanes to two lanes. LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (Year 2018 plus Project Select Zone Scenario Only): 1. Create Fancher Creek Drive between Node 7079 and Node 7070 a. Classification: Scenic Collector b. One lane in each direction c. Speed: 35 MPH LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (For Base Year 2018, Year 2018 plus Project Select Zone and Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Select Zone Scenarios): 1. Modify Butler Avenue east of Temperance Avenue to rename from Locan to Butler. 2. Create Hamilton Avenue between Fowler Avenue and Temperance Avenue. a. Classification: Collector b. One lane in each direction c. Speed: 40 MPH LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (For Year 2018 plus Project Select Zone and Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Select Zone Scenarios): 1. Create Project TAZ A generally located southwest of the intersection of Belmont Avenue and Armstrong Avenue (see Exhibits B and C). TAZ A shall have a TAZ Connector to Fancher Creek Drive (south). TAZ A Project Only Trip Generation (For Year 2018 plus Project Select Zone and Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Select Zone Scenarios Only) Table I presents the trip generation for the proposed Project pursuant to the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual with trip generation rates for Single-Family Detached Housing. At build-out, the Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 1,038 daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 3 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 Table I: Project Only Trip Generation Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units Access to the Project Access to and from the Project site will from two (2) points. Both of the proposed access points will be located along the north side of the Fancher Creek Drive extension west of Armstrong Avenue. One of the access points is located approximately 850 feet west of Armstrong Avenue along Fancher Creek Drive and is proposed as an exit only access. The other access point is located approximately 1,200 feet west of Armstrong Avenue along Fancher Creek drive and is proposed as a full access. Additional Project details are found in Exhibit B. Please invoice JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. and reference JLB Project No. 004-057 on the invoice. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (559) 570-8991 or by e-mail at smaciel@JLBtraffic.com. Sincerely, Susana Maciel, EIT Engineer I/II cc: Jose Benavides, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Lang Yu, Fresno Council of Governments Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004-057 Tract 6191 TIA\Model Request\L03022018 Model Request.docx Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Total Trip Rate In Out In Out Total Trip Rate In Out In Out Total % % Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 110 d.u. 9.44 1,038 0.74 25 75 20 61 81 0.99 63 37 69 40 109 Total Project Trips 1,038 20 61 81 69 40 109 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 4 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 Exhibit A – Aerial www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 5 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 Exhibit B – Site Plan www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 6 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 Exhibit C – Model TAZ Modifications www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 7 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 8 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | 9 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Mr. Han Fresno COG Modeling Request (Project 004-057) March 2, 2018 (Licensed to JLB Traffic Engineering Inc) AM, PM and Daily Volumes Project Select Zone Base Year 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0000000110 0 0 0 0 0 20616940519519FowlerFowler2671527206205FowlerFowler2671527206205Belmont Belmont 12 39 44 24 338 336 FowlerFowler391067777FowlerFowler391057070FowlerFowler391057070Belmont Belmont 8 3 7 9 79 77 ArmstrongArmstrong20616940519519Belmont Belmont 12 40 44 24 340 337 ArmstrongArmstrong135915102102FowlerFowler391067575FowlerFowler391067676Belmont Belmont 12 39 44 24 338 336 Belmont Belmont 12 40 44 24 339 336 000 SR 180 0 0 0 SR 1800 0 0 R 180 SR 1800 0 0 Tulare/Armstro Tulare/Armstro0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0FowlerFowler391067777 ArmstrongArmstrong 61 20 40 69 519 519 Fancher CreekFancher Creek 61 20 40 69 519 519 ArmstrongArmstrong 61 20 40 69 519 519 ArmstrongArmstrong61204069519519ArmstrongArmstrong61204069519519ArmstrongArmstrong20616940519519Fancher CreekFancher Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 992 993 995 1440 1726 2044 2749 2796 3559 5308 5559 5565 5705 6679 6680 6681 6708 7054 7055 7058 7059 7070 7071 7072 7073 7074 7075 7078 7079 7080 7081 7085 12419 (Licensed to JLB Traffic Engineering Inc)AM, PM and Daily VolumesProject Select ZoneBase Year 20180000000000000000000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 000011000000000000000011000000000000000000000000000011000000FowlerFowler2671527206205FowlerFowler2671527206205FowlerFowler000012BelmontBelmont24735553BelmontBelmont12394424338336BelmontBelmont24735653FowlerFowler391067777Armstrong Armstrong 20 61 69 40 519 519 BelmontBelmont12404424340337ArmstrongArmstrong135915102102FowlerFowler391067676BelmontBelmont12394424338336BelmontBelmont12404424339336SR 180000SR 180727203FowlerFowler000022Fowler Fowler 0 26 0 15 2 206 SR 1802615204SR 180000000SR 180727203SR 180000SR 180000SR 180000SR 180000SR 180000FowlerFowler391067777ongong9Armstrong Armstrong 20 61 69 40 519 519 SR 1802615204ArmstrongArmstrong1348159998SR 180000 SR 180000184185989992995141614401681172620442748274935595308555956105623570457056679668066817049705470557074708070819002121461221412215 (Licensed to JLB Traffic Engineering Inc)AM, PM and Daily VolumesProject Select ZoneBase Year 20180000000000000000 00FowlerFowler2671527206205FowlerFowler2671527206205BelmontBelmont12394424338336BelmontBelmont24735653BelmontBelmont12394424338336SR 180000SR 180727203FowlerFowler000022Fowler Fowler 0 26 0 15 2 206 SR 1802615204SR 180000000SR 180000SR 180000SR 180000SR 18000 0 SR 18000018520442749555956105623570566796680668190021221412215 (Licensed to JLB Traffic Engineering Inc) AM, PM and Daily Volumes Project Select Zone Cumulative Year 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10000340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0020000220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20616940519519FowlerFowler124713131126FowlerFowler124713131126Belmont Belmont 5 15 17 9 158 156 FowlerFowler000010FowlerFowler000021FowlerFowler101065Belmont Belmont 3 1 3 4 16 17 ArmstrongArmstrong11353822298298Belmont Belmont 5 16 17 10 164 162 ArmstrongArmstrong1641018120117FowlerFowler000021FowlerFowler000021Belmont Belmont 5 16 17 9 159 156 Belmont Belmont 5 16 17 10 162 160 001 SR 180 0 0 0 S R 1800 0 1 80 SR 180000 Tulare/Armstro Tulare/Armstro10 4 7 11 90 915161911130130Fancher CreekFancher Creek926301822022010 4 7 11 90 91FowlerFowler000010 Fancher CreekFancher Creek5161911128129n c h er CreekFa n cher C ree k 51611128 ArmstrongArmstrong 35 11 22 39 299 299 Fancher CreekFancher Creek 35 11 22 39 299 299 ArmstrongArmstrong 35 11 22 39 299 29 9 ArmstrongArmstrong35112239299299ArmstrongArmstrong35112239299299ArmstrongArmstrong11353922299299Fancher CreekFancher Creek 9 26 30 18 220 220 9 2 6 3 0 1 8 2 20 2 20 Fancher CreekFancher Creek9263018220220185 992 993 995 1440 1726 2044 2749 2796 3559 5308 5559 5565 5705 6679 66806681 6708 7054 7055 7058 7059 7070 7071 7072 7073 7074 7075 7078 7079 7080 7081 7085 12419 (Licensed to JLB Traffic Engineering Inc)AM, PM and Daily VolumesProject Select ZoneCumulative Year 203500000000000000000000 0000 0010 0 0 0 0 0 000011000034000000000000000022000000000000000000000000000022000000FowlerFowler124713131126FowlerFowler124713131126FowlerFowler000000BelmontBelmont23323125BelmontBelmont515179158156BelmontBelmont23323226FowlerFowler000010Armstrong Armstrong 11 35 38 22 298 298 BelmontBelmont5161710164162ArmstrongArmstrong1641018120117FowlerFowler000021BelmontBelmont516179159156BelmontBelmont5161710162160SR 180001SR 180413126FowlerFowler000000Fowler Fowler 0 12 0 7 0 131 SR 180117129SR 180100010SR 180413127SR 180000SR 180001SR 180000SR 180000SR 180000FowlerFowler000010ngngArmstrong Armstrong 11 35 39 22 299 299 SR 180127130ArmstrongArmstrong164917116113SR 180 101 SR 180101184185989992995141614401681172620442748274935595308555956105623570457056679668066817049705470557074708070819002121461221412215 (Licensed to JLB Traffic Engineering Inc)AM, PM and Daily VolumesProject Select ZoneCumulative Year 203500000000000000 0000 FowlerFowler124713131126FowlerFowler124713131126BelmontBelmont515179158156BelmontBelmont23323226BelmontBelmont516179159156SR 180001SR 180413126FowlerFowler000000Fowler Fowler 0 12 0 7 0 131 SR 180117129SR 180100010SR 180000SR 180000SR 180000SR 180101 SR 18010118520442749555956105623570566796680668190021221412215 http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | D Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix D: Methodology Levels of Service Methodology The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service (LOS) are found in the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM 2010 represents the research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities. Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level of service (LOS), from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions and the driver’s perception of these conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish a LOS. Urban Streets (Automobile Mode) The term “urban streets” refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtown areas. Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials. Collector streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial and industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials, and unlike arterials their operation is not always dominated by traffic signals. Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials. They not only move through traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses, and trucks. Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing taxicabs, buses, trucks and parking vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic flow are typical of downtown streets. Flow Characteristics The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment, interaction among vehicles and traffic control. The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside activity, and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of median, driveway/access point density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parking, level of pedestrian and bicyclist activity and speed limit. The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses, and turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser extent, between signals. Traffic controls (including signals and signs) forces a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds; however, such controls are needed to establish right-of-way. www.JLBtraffic.com info@JLBtraffic.com www.JLBtraffic.com 2 info@JLBtraffic.com Levels of Service (automobile Mode) The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating level of service (LOS). The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections. LOS A describes primarily free-flow operation. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Travel speeds exceed 85 of the base free flow speed (FFS). LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and control delay at the boundary intersections is not significant. The travel speed is between 67 and 85 percent of the base FFS. LOS C describes stable operations. The ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50 and 67 percent of the base FFS. LOS D indicates a less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volumes, inappropriate signal timing, at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40 and 50 percent of the base FFS. LOS E is characterized unstable operation and significant delay. Such operations may be due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30 and 40 percent of the base FFS. LOS F is characterized by street flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30 percent or less of the base FFS. Table A-1: Urban Street Levels of Service (Automobile Mode) Travel Speed as a Percentage of Base Free-Flow Speed (%) LOS by Critical Volume-to-Capacity Ratioa >85 A F >67 to 85 B F >50 to 67 C F >40 to 50 D F >30 to 40 E F F F Intersection Levels of Service One of the more important elements limiting, and often interrupting the flow of traffic on a highway is the intersection. Flow on an interrupted facility is usually dominated by points of fixed operation such as traffic signals, stop and yield signs. Signalized Intersections – Performance Measures For signalized intersections the performance measures include automobile volume-to-capacity ratio, automobile delay, queue storage length, ratio of pedestrian delay, pedestrian circulation area, pedestrian perception score, bicycle delay, and bicycle perception score. LOS is also considered a performance measure. For the automobile mode average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection. A LOS designation is given to the weighted average control delay to better describe the level of operation. A description of LOS for signalized intersections is found in Table A-2. www.JLBtraffic.com info@JLBtraffic.com Table A-2: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Description (Automobile Mode) Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Operations with a control delay of 10 seconds/vehicle or less and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when volume-to-capacity ratio is and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it’s due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. 10 B Operations with control delay between 10.1 to 20.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to- capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. >10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average control delays between 20.1 to 35.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. >20 to 35 D Operations with control delay between 35.1 to 55.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to- capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop, and i ndividual cycle failures are noticeable. >35 to 55 E Operations with control delay between 55.1 to 80.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to- capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. >55 to 80 F Operations with unacceptable control delay exceeding 80.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. >80 Unsignalized Intersections The HCM 2010 procedures use control delay as a measure of effectiveness to determine level of service. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i. e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection. www.JLBtraffic.com info@JLBtraffic.com All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections All-way stop controlled intersections is a form of traffic controls in which all approaches to an intersection are required to stop. Similar to signalized intersections, at all-way stop controlled intersections the average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection as a whole. In other words the delay measured for all-way stop controlled intersections is a measure of the average delay for all vehicles passing through the intersection during the peak hour. A LOS designation is given to the weighted average control delay to better describe the level of operation. Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections Two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At TWSC intersections the stop- controlled approaches are referred as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major street approaches. The capacity of movements subject to delay are determined using the "critical gap" method of capacity analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is calculated. A LOS for TWSC intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole for three main reasons: (a) major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay; (b) the disproportionate number of major-street through vehicles at the typical TWSC intersection skews the weighted average of all movements, resulting in a very low overall average delay from all vehicles; and (c) the resulting low delay can mask important LOS deficiencies for minor movements. Table A-3 provides a description of LOS at unsignalized intersections. Table A-3: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Description (Automobile Mode) Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio v/c < 10 A F >10 to 15 B F >15 to 25 C F >25 to 35 D F >35 to 50 E F >50 F F www.JLBtraffic.com info@JLBtraffic.com http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | E Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix E: Existing Traffic Conditions HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 106 156 67 166 156 76 2 76 721 132 16 100 Future Volume (vph) 106 156 67 166 156 76 2 76 721 132 16 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3347 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3347 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 168 72 178 168 82 2 82 775 142 17 108 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 56 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 86 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 184 0 178 168 18 0 84 775 56 0 125 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 13.4 9.4 15.6 15.6 6.7 23.0 23.0 5.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 13.4 9.4 15.6 15.6 6.7 23.0 23.0 5.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.19 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 643 236 412 350 168 1156 517 258 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.06 c0.10 c0.09 c0.05 c0.22 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.29 0.75 0.41 0.05 0.50 0.67 0.11 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 24.1 29.0 23.1 21.2 29.9 20.1 16.2 30.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 0.2 12.8 0.7 0.1 2.3 1.5 0.1 1.4 Delay (s) 37.1 24.3 41.8 23.8 21.3 32.2 21.6 16.3 32.3 Level of Service D C D C C C C B C Approach Delay (s) 28.4 30.8 21.8 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.7 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 338 26 Future Volume (vph) 338 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 363 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 363 9 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 21.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1066 476 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 19.0 17.0 Level of Service B B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 261 116 0 5 114 63 2 0 0 38 4 277 Future Vol, veh/h 261 116 0 5 114 63 2 0 0 38 4 277 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 318 141 0 6 139 77 2 0 0 46 5 338 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 216 0 0 141 0 0 1138 1005 141 967 967 178 Stage 1 ------777777-190190- Stage 2 ------361228-777777- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1348 - - 1436 - - 178 240 904 233 253 862 Stage 1 ------388406-809741- Stage 2 ------655714-388406- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1348 - - 1436 - - 87 183 904 190 193 862 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------87183-190193- Stage 1 ------296310-618738- Stage 2 ------394711-296310- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.9 0.2 47.6 14.1 HCM LOS E B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) 87 - - 1348 - - 1436 - - 190 193 862 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.236 - - 0.004 - - 0.244 0.025 0.392 HCM Control Delay (s) 47.6 0 0 8.5 - - 7.5 - - 30 24.1 11.8 HCM Lane LOS EAAA - -A - -DCB HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.9 - - 0 - - 0.9 0.1 1.9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 139 94 1 68 111 52 5 61 439 115 17 Future Volume (vph) 63 139 94 1 68 111 52 5 61 439 115 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3292 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3292 1088 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 156 106 1 76 125 58 6 69 493 129 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 87 000045000830 Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 175 0 0 77 125 13 0 75 493 46 0 Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 3 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.7 13.4 8.5 16.2 16.2 5.8 26.8 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.7 13.4 8.5 16.2 16.2 5.8 26.8 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.18 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 587 123 397 338 135 1250 559 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.05 c0.07 c0.04 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.30 0.63 0.31 0.04 0.56 0.39 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 26.8 31.8 24.8 23.3 33.4 18.1 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.3 9.6 0.5 0.0 4.9 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 37.6 27.1 41.3 25.2 23.3 38.3 18.3 16.1 Level of Service D C D C C D B B Approach Delay (s) 29.3 29.6 20.0 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.1 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 172 786 74 Future Volume (vph) 172 786 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 193 883 83 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 883 31 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 28.4 28.4 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 28.4 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 353 1325 592 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.67 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 19.4 14.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 1.3 0.0 Delay (s) 35.0 20.7 14.9 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 22.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 247 190 0 2 140 23 6 2 3 24 5 98 Future Vol, veh/h 247 190 0 2 140 23 6 2 3 24 5 98 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 255 196 0 2 144 24 6 2 3 25 5 101 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 168 0 0 196 0 0 919 878 196 869 866 156 Stage 1 ------706706-160160- Stage 2 ------213172-709706- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1404 - - 1371 - - 251 286 843 271 290 887 Stage 1 ------425437-840764- Stage 2 ------787755-423437- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1404 - - 1371 - - 188 234 843 231 237 887 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------188234-231237- Stage 1 ------348357-687763- Stage 2 ------692754-343357- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.6 0.1 19.8 12.4 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) 188 234 843 1404 - - 1371 - - 231 237 887 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.009 0.004 0.181 - - 0.002 - - 0.107 0.022 0.114 HCM Control Delay (s) 24.8 20.5 9.3 8.1 - - 7.6 - - 22.4 20.5 9.6 HCM Lane LOS C C A A - - A - - C C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 0.7 - - 0 - - 0.4 0.1 0.4 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak Hour Baseline 04/06/2018 Baseline SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR UL T R UL T T R UL L Maximum Queue (ft) 171 129 100 200 155 66 96 330 332 226 93 93 Average Queue (ft) 64 57 38 117 68 23 56 168 143 38 55 31 95th Queue (ft) 117 100 80 200 122 47 90 254 246 101 95 68 Link Distance (ft) 2581 2581 2487 2415 2415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 250 150 250 160 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 4 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 90 104 45 Average Queue (ft) 50 53 7 95th Queue (ft) 82 97 25 Link Distance (ft) 1737 1737 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LLLLTR Maximum Queue (ft) 87 18 18 48 25 94 Average Queue (ft) 29 1 1 20 1 55 95th Queue (ft) 72 6 6 38 8 80 Link Distance (ft) 589 589 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 300 250 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak Hour Baseline 04/06/2018 Baseline SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR UL T R UL T T R UL L Maximum Queue (ft) 88 127 126 111 155 42 158 181 116 97 137 102 Average Queue (ft) 48 47 41 40 53 13 56 88 45 34 64 43 95th Queue (ft) 83 88 91 84 106 34 108 142 92 70 109 82 Link Distance (ft) 2581 2581 2487 2415 2415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 250 150 250 160 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 222 245 170 Average Queue (ft) 125 125 25 95th Queue (ft) 213 214 91 Link Distance (ft) 1737 1737 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 67 18 21 18 13 69 29 53 Average Queue (ft) 21 141215727 95th Queue (ft) 54 6 18 6 8 40 25 40 Link Distance (ft) 2487 1937 589 589 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 7 http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | F Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix F: Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 106 158 67 175 160 102 2 76 721 135 16 107 Future Volume (vph) 106 158 67 175 160 102 2 76 721 135 16 107 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3348 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3348 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 170 72 188 172 110 2 82 775 145 17 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 89 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 188 0 188 172 26 0 84 775 56 0 132 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 12.9 9.4 16.1 16.1 6.6 23.0 23.0 5.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 12.9 9.4 16.1 16.1 6.6 23.0 23.0 5.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.19 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 624 237 429 364 167 1164 521 260 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.06 c0.11 c0.09 c0.05 c0.22 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.30 0.79 0.40 0.07 0.50 0.67 0.11 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 24.3 29.0 22.5 20.7 29.7 19.8 16.0 30.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.1 0.3 16.5 0.6 0.1 2.4 1.5 0.1 1.6 Delay (s) 46.8 24.5 45.4 23.1 20.8 32.1 21.3 16.1 32.3 Level of Service D C D C C C C B C Approach Delay (s) 31.7 31.5 21.4 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.2 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 338 26 Future Volume (vph) 338 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 363 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 363 9 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.3 21.3 Effective Green, g (s) 21.3 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1078 482 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 18.7 16.7 Level of Service B B Approach Delay (s) 22.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/06/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 12.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 261 116 12 8 114 63 42 13 8 38 9 277 Future Vol, veh/h 261 116 12 8 114 63 42 13 8 38 9 277 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 318 141 15 10 139 77 51 16 10 46 11 338 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 216 0 0 156 0 0 1149 1013 141 996 990 178 Stage 1 ------777777-198198- Stage 2 ------372236-798792- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1348 - - 1418 - - 175 238 904 222 245 862 Stage 1 ------388406-802735- Stage 2 ------646708-378399- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1348 - - 1418 - - 83 181 904 167 186 862 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------83181-167186- Stage 1 ------296310-613730- Stage 2 ------384703-271305- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.7 0.3 74.5 14.9 HCM LOS F B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) 83 181 904 1348 - - 1418 - - 167 186 862 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.617 0.088 0.011 0.236 - - 0.007 - - 0.277 0.059 0.392 HCM Control Delay (s) 101.7 26.8 9 8.5 - - 7.6 - - 34.6 25.6 11.8 HCM Lane LOS F D A A - - A - - D D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 0.3 0 0.9 - - 0 - - 1.1 0.2 1.9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 146 94 1 74 114 67 5 61 439 125 17 Future Volume (vph) 63 146 94 1 74 114 67 5 61 439 125 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3298 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3298 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 164 106 1 83 128 75 6 69 493 140 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 87 000060000910 Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 183 0 0 84 128 15 0 75 493 49 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.4 12.8 6.8 14.2 14.2 5.8 24.8 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.4 12.8 6.8 14.2 14.2 5.8 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.18 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 134 599 169 372 316 144 1234 552 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 c0.05 c0.07 0.04 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.31 0.50 0.34 0.05 0.52 0.40 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 25.0 30.2 24.1 22.7 31.0 17.2 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.3 2.3 0.6 0.1 3.4 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 35.0 25.2 32.5 24.7 22.7 34.3 17.4 15.3 Level of Service D C C C C C B B Approach Delay (s) 27.3 26.4 18.8 Approach LOS C C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.4 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 199 786 74 Future Volume (vph) 199 786 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 224 883 83 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 243 883 31 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.4 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.4 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 357 1294 579 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 18.7 14.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 1.5 0.0 Delay (s) 35.6 20.2 14.3 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 22.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 247 190 44 11 140 23 30 11 10 24 20 98 Future Vol, veh/h 247 190 44 11 140 23 30 11 10 24 20 98 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 255 196 45 11 144 24 31 11 10 25 21 101 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 168 0 0 241 0 0 945 896 196 917 929 156 Stage 1 ------706706-178178- Stage 2 ------239190-739751- Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1404 - - 1320 - - 241 279 843 252 267 887 Stage 1 ------425437-821750- Stage 2 ------762741-408417- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1404 - - 1320 - - 170 226 843 205 217 887 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------170226-205217- Stage 1 ------348357-672744- Stage 2 ------651735-319341- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.2 0.5 24.6 14.1 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) 170 226 843 1404 - - 1320 - - 205 217 887 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.182 0.05 0.012 0.181 - - 0.009 - - 0.121 0.095 0.114 HCM Control Delay (s) 30.8 21.8 9.3 8.1 - - 7.8 - - 25 23.3 9.6 HCM Lane LOS D C A A - - A - - D C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.2 0 0.7 - - 0 - - 0.4 0.3 0.4 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.5 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 261 116 12 8 114 63 42 13 8 38 9 277 Future Vol, veh/h 261 116 12 8 114 63 42 13 8 38 9 277 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, %333333333333 Mvmt Flow 318 141 15 10 139 77 51 16 10 46 11 338 Number of Lanes 111110111111 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2333 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3332 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3323 HCM Control Delay 19.3 14.9 11.9 17.9 HCM LOS C B B C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 64% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 36% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 42 13 8 261 116 12 8 177 38 9 277 LT Vol 420026100803800 Through Vol 0 13 0 0 116 0 0 114 0 9 0 RT Vol 008001206300277 Lane Flow Rate 51 16 10 318 141 15 10 216 46 11 338 Geometry Grp 88888888888 Degree of Util (X) 0.122 0.036 0.02 0.652 0.27 0.025 0.021 0.427 0.1 0.022 0.613 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.599 8.089 7.374 7.374 6.872 6.169 7.876 7.127 7.746 7.239 6.53 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 417 442 485 490 523 580 455 505 463 495 554 Service Time 6.351 5.841 5.126 5.112 4.61 3.907 5.617 4.867 5.481 4.974 4.264 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.122 0.036 0.021 0.649 0.27 0.026 0.022 0.428 0.099 0.022 0.61 HCM Control Delay 12.5 11.1 10.3 22.9 12.1 9.1 10.8 15.1 11.3 10.1 19.1 HCM Lane LOS B B B C B A B C B B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.1 0.1 4.6 1.1 0.1 0.1 2.1 0.3 0.1 4.1 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.4 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 247 190 44 11 140 23 30 11 10 24 20 98 Future Vol, veh/h 247 190 44 11 140 23 30 11 10 24 20 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, %333333333333 Mvmt Flow 255 196 45 11 144 24 31 11 10 25 21 101 Number of Lanes 111110111111 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2333 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3332 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3323 HCM Control Delay 12 11.2 10.1 9.9 HCM LOS BBBA Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 86% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 14% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 30 11 10 247 190 44 11 163 24 20 98 LT Vol 30 0 0 247 0 0 11 0 24 0 0 Through Vol 0 11 0 0 190 0 0 140 0 20 0 RT Vol 0 0 10 0 0 44 0 23 0 0 98 Lane Flow Rate 31 11 10 255 196 45 11 168 25 21 101 Geometry Grp 88888888888 Degree of Util (X) 0.063 0.022 0.018 0.436 0.308 0.063 0.021 0.287 0.049 0.038 0.167 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.369 6.864 6.156 6.168 5.667 4.966 6.743 6.145 7.147 6.642 5.935 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 486 521 581 586 635 721 531 585 501 539 604 Service Time 5.115 4.609 3.901 3.896 3.396 2.695 4.479 3.88 4.886 4.381 3.674 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 0.021 0.017 0.435 0.309 0.062 0.021 0.287 0.05 0.039 0.167 HCM Control Delay 10.6 9.8 9 13.6 10.9 8 9.6 11.3 10.3 9.6 9.9 HCM Lane LOS BAABBAABBAA HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour Mitigated 04/09/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR UL T R UL T T R UL L Maximum Queue (ft) 294 150 129 202 247 66 115 240 222 224 108 92 Average Queue (ft) 114 56 42 108 68 33 51 159 136 39 51 35 95th Queue (ft) 235 106 103 183 149 59 91 222 212 100 92 78 Link Distance (ft) 2581 2581 2487 2415 2415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 250 150 250 160 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%) 8 1 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 3 0 2 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 161 149 42 Average Queue (ft) 62 59 8 95th Queue (ft) 115 114 30 Link Distance (ft) 1737 1737 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 113 73 18 23 89 56 21 13 42 29 117 Average Queue (ft) 48 34 5 6 29 19 8 3 18 7 50 95th Queue (ft) 82 55 17 21 55 41 22 11 38 25 88 Link Distance (ft) 2487 2487 2612 1937 589 589 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 12 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour Mitigated 04/09/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR UL T R UL T T R UL L Maximum Queue (ft) 108 87 104 135 157 63 110 192 157 74 138 102 Average Queue (ft) 39 49 38 53 60 21 55 99 57 32 79 51 95th Queue (ft) 81 90 83 112 109 43 97 157 129 66 123 95 Link Distance (ft) 2581 2581 2487 2415 2415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 250 150 250 160 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 214 246 170 Average Queue (ft) 119 130 36 95th Queue (ft) 184 205 124 Link Distance (ft) 1737 1737 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 106 23 24 67 68 20 19 30 44 53 Average Queue (ft) 48 40 13 5 32 16 3 4 12 14 29 95th Queue (ft) 75 72 28 20 59 41 15 14 32 37 43 Link Distance (ft) 2487 2487 2612 1937 589 589 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 7 http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | G Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix G: Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 120 388 148 285 247 182 2 170 1107 351 16 360 Future Volume (vph) 120 388 148 285 247 182 2 170 1107 351 16 360 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3360 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3360 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 417 159 306 266 196 2 183 1190 377 17 387 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 103 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 129 547 0 306 266 68 0 185 1190 274 0 404 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 28.7 24.8 38.5 38.5 18.3 50.7 50.7 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 28.7 24.8 38.5 38.5 18.3 50.7 50.7 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.21 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 689 310 508 431 229 1271 568 413 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.16 c0.17 0.14 0.11 c0.34 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.79 0.99 0.52 0.16 0.81 0.94 0.48 0.98 Uniform Delay, d1 60.2 52.7 57.3 42.9 38.4 59.0 43.0 34.4 61.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.1 6.3 47.1 1.0 0.2 18.5 12.8 0.6 38.1 Delay (s) 70.3 59.0 104.5 43.9 38.6 77.6 55.8 35.1 99.3 Level of Service E E F D D E E D F Approach Delay (s) 61.1 66.7 53.6 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 58.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 139.8 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 750 29 Future Volume (vph) 750 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 806 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 806 11 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1228 549 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 38.3 29.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.0 Delay (s) 39.6 29.7 Level of Service D C Approach Delay (s) 58.8 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/09/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 301 195 22 158 287 120 63 149 39 43 142 348 Future Vol, veh/h 301 195 22 158 287 120 63 149 39 43 142 348 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 367 238 27 193 350 146 77 182 48 52 173 424 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 496 0 0 265 0 0 2080 1854 238 1910 1808 423 Stage 1 ------972972-809809- Stage 2 ------1108 882 - 1101 999 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1063 - - 1293 - - ~ 39 ~ 73 798 ~ 51 ~ 78 629 Stage 1 ------302329-373392- Stage 2 ------254363-256320- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1063 - - 1293 - - - ~ 41 798 - ~ 43 629 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -------~ 41--~ 43- Stage 1 ------198215-244334- Stage 2 ------~ 34309-~ 24210- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 5.9 2.3 HCM LOS - - Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) - 41 798 1063 - - 1293 - - - 43 629 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 4.432 0.06 0.345 - - 0.149 - - - 4.027 0.675 HCM Control Delay (s) -$ 1743.3 9.8 10.2 - - 8.3 - - -$ 1554.5 21.8 HCM Lane LOS - F A B - - A - - - F C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 20.9 0.2 1.6 - - 0.5 - - - 19.6 5.2 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 69 215 174 1 339 363 335 5 145 742 311 17 Future Volume (vph) 69 215 174 1 339 363 335 5 145 742 311 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3270 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3270 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 242 196 1 381 408 376 6 163 834 349 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 112 00001710001300 Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 326 0 0 382 408 205 0 169 834 219 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 20.6 29.0 38.9 38.9 12.9 48.5 48.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 20.6 29.0 38.9 38.9 12.9 48.5 48.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 505 381 538 457 169 1276 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.10 c0.22 c0.22 c0.10 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.65 1.00 0.76 0.45 1.00 0.65 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 59.0 52.9 52.1 42.9 38.4 60.1 35.3 31.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 2.8 46.8 6.1 0.7 69.2 1.2 0.4 Delay (s) 63.7 55.7 98.9 48.9 39.1 129.4 36.6 31.7 Level of Service E E F D D F D C Approach Delay (s) 56.9 62.1 46.9 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.2 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 275 1157 78 Future Volume (vph) 275 1157 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 309 1300 88 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 54 Lane Group Flow (vph) 328 1300 34 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 51.7 51.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 51.7 51.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 421 1360 608 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.96 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 56.6 39.6 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 15.0 0.0 Delay (s) 65.4 54.7 25.5 Level of Service E D C Approach Delay (s) 55.2 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 53.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 331 386 71 37 282 43 58 51 112 59 108 172 Future Vol, veh/h 331 386 71 37 282 43 58 51 112 59 108 172 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 341 398 73 38 291 44 60 53 115 61 111 177 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 335 0 0 471 0 0 1613 1491 398 1590 1542 313 Stage 1 ------1080 1080 - 389 389 - Stage 2 ------533411-1201 1153 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1219 - - 1086 - - 83 123 649 86 114 725 Stage 1 ------263293-633607- Stage 2 ------529593-225271- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1219 - - 1086 - - - 85 649 ~ 28 ~ 79 725 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -------85-~ 28~ 79- Stage 1 ------189211-456586- Stage 2 ------312572-100195- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 3.8 0.9 259 HCM LOS - F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) - 85 649 1219 - - 1086 - - 28 79 725 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.619 0.178 0.28 - - 0.035 - - 2.172 1.409 0.245 HCM Control Delay (s) - 99.9 11.7 9.1 - - 8.4 - -$ 839.2 $ 336 11.6 HCM Lane LOS - F B A - - A - - F F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 2.9 0.6 1.2 - - 0.1 - - 7.2 8.8 1 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 120 388 148 285 247 182 2 170 1107 351 16 360 Future Volume (vph) 120 388 148 285 247 182 2 170 1107 351 16 360 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1568 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 417 159 306 266 196 2 183 1190 377 17 387 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 0 142 0 0 0 100 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 129 417 28 306 266 54 0 185 1190 277 0 404 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 23.4 23.4 24.9 25.9 25.9 18.0 50.8 50.8 17.1 Effective Green, g (s) 22.4 23.4 23.4 24.9 25.9 25.9 18.0 50.8 50.8 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 291 608 272 323 354 301 233 1320 590 431 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.12 c0.17 0.14 0.11 c0.34 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.69 0.10 0.95 0.75 0.18 0.79 0.90 0.47 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 50.6 52.3 46.9 54.3 51.4 45.6 56.6 39.6 31.8 58.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 3.2 0.2 36.0 8.7 0.3 16.8 8.8 0.6 27.9 Delay (s) 51.7 55.5 47.0 90.3 60.1 45.8 73.4 48.4 32.4 86.2 Level of Service D E D F E D E D C F Approach Delay (s) 52.9 68.5 47.6 Approach LOS D E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.8 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 750 29 Future Volume (vph) 750 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 806 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 806 11 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 49.5 49.5 Effective Green, g (s) 49.5 49.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1287 575 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.0 Delay (s) 36.0 27.2 Level of Service D C Approach Delay (s) 52.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 301 195 22 158 287 120 63 149 39 43 142 348 Future Volume (veh/h) 301 195 22 158 287 120 63 149 39 43 142 348 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 367 238 27 193 350 146 77 182 48 52 173 424 Adj No. of Lanes 111111111111 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 331 505 429 230 399 339 98 573 487 74 546 465 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 367 238 27 193 350 146 77 182 48 52 173 424 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 9.0 1.1 9.0 15.4 6.8 3.6 6.3 1.8 2.5 6.1 21.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 9.0 1.1 9.0 15.4 6.8 3.6 6.3 1.8 2.5 6.1 21.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 331 505 429 230 399 339 98 573 487 74 546 465 V/C Ratio(X) 1.11 0.47 0.06 0.84 0.88 0.43 0.78 0.32 0.10 0.71 0.32 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 331 521 443 285 457 389 105 613 521 107 615 523 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.1 25.4 22.5 35.6 31.8 28.4 39.1 22.1 20.6 39.7 22.9 28.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 82.3 0.7 0.1 16.4 15.8 0.9 29.7 0.3 0.1 11.7 0.3 19.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.2 4.7 0.5 5.4 9.5 3.0 2.6 3.3 0.8 1.4 3.2 11.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 116.4 26.1 22.6 52.0 47.6 29.3 68.8 22.5 20.7 51.4 23.3 47.6 LnGrp LOS F CCDDCECCDCD Approach Vol, veh/h 632 689 307 649 Approach Delay, s/veh 78.4 44.9 33.8 41.4 Approach LOS E D C D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.7 32.0 15.2 29.0 8.9 30.9 20.0 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.1 27.9 * 14 * 24 * 5 28.0 * 16 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 8.3 11.0 11.0 5.6 23.9 17.8 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 69 215 174 1 339 363 335 5 145 742 311 17 Future Volume (vph) 69 215 174 1 339 363 335 5 145 742 311 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1568 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 242 196 1 381 408 376 6 163 834 349 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 143 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 130 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 242 53 0 382 408 204 0 169 834 219 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 17.8 17.8 30.6 37.8 37.8 12.9 48.5 48.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 17.8 17.8 30.6 37.8 37.8 12.9 48.5 48.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 472 211 406 528 449 171 1287 576 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 c0.22 c0.22 c0.10 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.13 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.51 0.25 0.94 0.77 0.45 0.99 0.65 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 58.4 53.1 51.1 49.8 43.2 38.6 59.5 34.7 30.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.9 0.6 30.0 6.9 0.7 64.7 1.1 0.4 Delay (s) 63.2 54.0 51.8 79.8 50.1 39.4 124.2 35.8 31.1 Level of Service E D D E D D F D C Approach Delay (s) 54.5 56.4 45.6 Approach LOS D E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 275 1157 78 Future Volume (vph) 275 1157 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 309 1300 88 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 54 Lane Group Flow (vph) 328 1300 34 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 51.7 51.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 51.7 51.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 425 1372 614 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.95 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 55.9 38.8 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.4 13.6 0.0 Delay (s) 64.4 52.4 25.0 Level of Service E D C Approach Delay (s) 53.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 331 386 71 37 282 43 58 51 112 59 108 172 Future Volume (veh/h) 331 386 71 37 282 43 58 51 112 59 108 172 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 341 398 73 38 291 44 60 53 115 61 111 177 Adj No. of Lanes 111111111111 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 398 720 612 70 374 318 94 292 248 95 293 249 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 341 398 73 38 291 44 60 53 115 61 111 177 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.6 9.6 1.7 1.2 8.5 1.3 1.9 1.4 3.8 1.9 3.1 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 9.6 1.7 1.2 8.5 1.3 1.9 1.4 3.8 1.9 3.1 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 398 720 612 70 374 318 94 292 248 95 293 249 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.55 0.12 0.55 0.78 0.14 0.64 0.18 0.46 0.64 0.38 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 502 1018 865 179 656 558 154 876 745 182 905 769 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 13.5 11.1 26.9 21.5 18.7 26.5 20.8 21.8 26.4 21.5 22.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 0.7 0.1 6.5 3.5 0.2 6.9 0.3 1.3 6.9 0.8 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 5.0 0.7 0.7 4.6 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.7 1.1 1.6 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 14.2 11.2 33.4 25.0 18.8 33.3 21.1 23.1 33.4 22.3 26.5 LnGrp LOS C B B C C B CCCCCC Approach Vol, veh/h 812 373 228 349 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 25.2 25.4 26.3 Approach LOS CCCC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 15.0 6.5 28.3 7.3 15.1 17.1 17.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.9 27.1 * 5.8 * 32 * 5 28.0 * 16 20.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 5.8 3.2 11.6 3.9 8.1 12.6 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.0 0.4 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term plus Project AM Peak Hour Mitigated 04/10/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T R UL T T R UL Maximum Queue (ft) 230 230 222 118 400 788 300 350 1429 1421 235 335 Average Queue (ft) 112 138 126 39 293 311 105 215 802 794 228 232 95th Queue (ft) 208 198 186 88 436 640 271 409 1208 1185 266 339 Link Distance (ft) 2582 2582 2487 2403 2403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 250 250 150 250 160 275 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 37 27 0 1 56 50 2 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 157 126 2 8 96 177 14 16 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 356 303 322 170 Average Queue (ft) 236 175 184 32 95th Queue (ft) 357 280 291 124 Link Distance (ft) 1737 1737 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 11 1 21 Queuing Penalty (veh) 40 4 6 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 301 171 42 218 294 86 90 131 19 87 134 131 Average Queue (ft) 179 80 4 102 141 31 41 60 9 32 66 75 95th Queue (ft) 266 143 22 166 245 66 80 120 22 69 118 121 Link Distance (ft) 2487 2487 2613 1937 579 579 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 654 Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term plus Project PM Peak Hour Mitigated 04/10/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R UL T R UL T T R UL Maximum Queue (ft) 147 155 141 162 394 448 300 340 314 317 235 230 Average Queue (ft) 48 94 64 56 235 221 119 173 232 198 105 131 95th Queue (ft) 100 146 122 126 360 364 239 289 318 304 234 204 Link Distance (ft) 2582 2582 2487 2403 2403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 250 250 150 250 160 275 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 23 24690 Queuing Penalty (veh) 84 152 17 15 9 29 0 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 395 663 643 170 Average Queue (ft) 226 393 393 70 95th Queue (ft) 456 616 605 196 Link Distance (ft) 1737 1737 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 22 45 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 63 35 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 292 242 42 91 293 40 110 64 84 69 108 130 Average Queue (ft) 181 121 14 30 129 10 37 25 23 31 47 39 95th Queue (ft) 254 211 31 64 230 27 77 56 50 63 93 78 Link Distance (ft) 2487 2487 2613 1937 579 579 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 407 http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | H Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix H: Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 292 417 148 276 628 168 2 175 1107 348 16 357 Future Volume (vph) 292 417 148 276 628 168 2 175 1107 348 16 357 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3367 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3367 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 314 448 159 297 675 181 2 188 1190 374 17 384 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 106 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 314 584 0 297 675 123 0 190 1190 268 0 401 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.8 42.0 28.5 48.7 48.7 17.3 46.1 46.1 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 21.8 42.0 28.5 48.7 48.7 17.3 46.1 46.1 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.28 0.19 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 254 942 332 599 509 202 1077 481 335 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.17 0.17 c0.37 0.11 c0.34 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.17 v/c Ratio 1.24 0.62 0.89 1.13 0.24 0.94 1.10 0.56 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 64.1 47.0 59.3 50.6 37.1 65.8 52.0 43.4 67.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 135.4 1.2 24.9 76.9 0.2 46.5 60.9 1.4 114.0 Delay (s) 199.5 48.3 84.2 127.6 37.4 112.4 112.8 44.8 181.6 Level of Service F D F F D F F D F Approach Delay (s) 99.8 102.2 98.3 Approach LOS F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 96.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 750 194 Future Volume (vph) 750 194 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 806 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 83 Lane Group Flow (vph) 806 126 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.2 43.2 Effective Green, g (s) 43.2 43.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1009 451 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 49.4 41.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.3 Delay (s) 53.9 41.7 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) 88.3 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 444 231 174 157 365 216 242 152 92 130 143 517 Future Vol, veh/h 444 231 174 157 365 216 242 152 92 130 143 517 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 483 251 189 171 397 235 263 165 100 141 155 562 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 632 0 0 440 0 0 2432 2191 251 2301 2263 515 Stage 1 ------1217 1217 - 857 857 - Stage 2 ------1215 974 - 1444 1406 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 946 - - 1115 - - ~ 22 ~ 45 785 ~ 27 ~ 41 ~ 558 Stage 1 ------~ 220252-351373- Stage 2 ------~ 221329-163205- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 946 - - 1115 - - - ~ 19 785 - ~ 17 ~ 558 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -------~ 19--~ 17- Stage 1 ------~ 108~ 123-172316- Stage 2 -------279--~ 100- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 6.6 1.9 HCM LOS - - Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) - 19 785 946 - - 1115 - - - 17 558 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 8.696 0.127 0.51 - - 0.153 - - - 9.143 1.007 HCM Control Delay (s) -$ 3859.8 10.3 12.7 - - 8.8 - - -$ 4105.3 67.1 HCM Lane LOS - F B B - - A - - - F F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 21.2 0.4 3 - - 0.5 - - - 20.2 14.8 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 206 460 312 1 333 429 327 5 199 742 301 17 Future Volume (vph) 206 460 312 1 333 429 327 5 199 742 301 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3292 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3292 1752 1845 1568 1752 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 224 500 339 1 362 466 355 5 216 807 327 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 80 00001290001350 Lane Group Flow (vph) 224 759 0 0 363 466 226 0 221 807 192 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 37.3 25.8 42.9 42.9 15.8 50.6 50.6 Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 37.3 25.8 42.9 42.9 15.8 50.6 50.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.25 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 827 304 533 453 186 1195 535 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.23 c0.21 0.25 c0.13 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.92 1.19 0.87 0.50 1.19 0.68 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 63.5 54.0 61.3 50.1 43.8 66.2 41.8 36.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 42.2 14.8 115.0 14.8 0.9 125.8 1.5 0.4 Delay (s) 105.6 68.8 176.3 64.9 44.6 192.1 43.3 37.1 Level of Service F E F E D F D D Approach Delay (s) 76.6 93.0 66.1 Approach LOS E F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 79.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 148.3 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 261 1157 220 Future Volume (vph) 261 1157 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 284 1258 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 80 Lane Group Flow (vph) 302 1258 159 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 50.4 50.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 50.4 50.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 366 1191 532 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.83 1.06 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 64.8 49.0 36.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 42.3 0.3 Delay (s) 78.8 91.2 36.3 Level of Service E F D Approach Delay (s) 81.9 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 423 386 161 154 282 189 166 236 161 169 202 245 Future Vol, veh/h 423 386 161 154 282 189 166 236 161 169 202 245 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 250 - 0 250 - - 300 - 130 250 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333 Mvmt Flow 436 398 166 159 291 195 171 243 166 174 208 253 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 486 0 0 564 0 0 2207 2074 398 2265 2143 389 Stage 1 ------1270 1270 - 707 707 - Stage 2 ------937804-1558 1436 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1072 - - 1003 - - ~ 32 ~ 53 649 ~ 29 ~ 48 657 Stage 1 ------205~ 238-424437- Stage 2 ------316394-~ 140~ 198- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1072 - - 1003 - - - ~ 26 649 - ~ 24 657 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -------~ 26--~ 24- Stage 1 ------~ 122~ 141-251368- Stage 2 ------~ 71331--~ 117- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 4.6 2.3 HCM LOS - - Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2NBLn3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2SBLn3 Capacity (veh/h) - 26 649 1072 - - 1003 - - - 24 657 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 9.358 0.256 0.407 - - 0.158 - - - 8.677 0.384 HCM Control Delay (s) -$ 4053.5 12.4 10.6 - - 9.3 - - -$ 3771.6 13.9 HCM Lane LOS - F B B - - A - - - F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 30.2 1 2 - - 0.6 - - - 26 1.8 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 292 417 148 276 628 168 2 175 1107 348 16 357 Future Volume (vph) 292 417 148 276 628 168 2 175 1107 348 16 357 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 3400 3505 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 3400 3505 1568 1752 3505 1568 3400 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 314 448 159 297 675 181 2 188 1190 374 17 384 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 121 0 0 99 0 0 0 109 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 314 448 38 297 675 82 0 190 1190 265 0 401 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 30.5 30.5 14.7 31.7 31.7 17.5 48.3 48.3 16.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 30.5 30.5 14.7 31.7 31.7 17.5 48.3 48.3 16.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 828 370 387 861 385 237 1312 587 445 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.09 c0.19 0.11 c0.34 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.05 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.54 0.10 0.77 0.78 0.21 0.80 0.91 0.45 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 57.0 43.1 38.5 55.5 45.5 38.7 54.1 38.2 30.4 55.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.0 0.7 0.1 8.8 4.7 0.3 17.5 9.2 0.6 21.0 Delay (s) 79.0 43.8 38.7 64.3 50.2 39.0 71.5 47.4 30.9 76.3 Level of Service E D D E D D E D C E Approach Delay (s) 54.9 52.1 46.5 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 129.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 750 194 Future Volume (vph) 750 194 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 806 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 79 Lane Group Flow (vph) 806 130 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.3 47.3 Effective Green, g (s) 47.3 47.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1285 574 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 33.6 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.2 Delay (s) 34.6 28.4 Level of Service C C Approach Delay (s) 45.5 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 444 231 174 157 365 216 242 152 92 130 143 517 Future Volume (veh/h) 444 231 174 157 365 216 242 152 92 130 143 517 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 483 251 189 171 397 235 263 165 100 141 155 562 Adj No. of Lanes 111121111111 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 483 606 515 200 585 262 267 536 456 169 433 800 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 1845 1568 1757 3505 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 483 251 189 171 397 235 263 165 100 141 155 562 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1845 1568 1757 1752 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 32.8 12.6 11.0 11.4 12.7 17.5 17.8 8.3 5.8 9.4 8.4 28.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.8 12.6 11.0 11.4 12.7 17.5 17.8 8.3 5.8 9.4 8.4 28.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 483 606 515 200 585 262 267 536 456 169 433 800 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.41 0.37 0.85 0.68 0.90 0.99 0.31 0.22 0.84 0.36 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 483 606 515 304 609 272 267 536 456 264 433 800 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.2 31.1 30.6 51.9 46.6 48.6 50.4 32.9 32.0 53.0 38.1 22.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 40.7 0.5 0.4 13.8 2.9 29.0 51.1 0.3 0.2 12.5 0.5 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 21.3 6.5 4.8 6.3 6.4 9.7 12.4 4.3 2.5 5.2 4.3 14.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.9 31.6 31.0 65.7 49.5 77.6 101.5 33.3 32.3 65.5 38.6 25.1 LnGrp LOS F C C E D E F C C E D C Approach Vol, veh/h 923 803 528 858 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.9 61.2 67.1 34.2 Approach LOS E E E C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.7 40.6 17.8 45.1 22.3 34.0 37.0 25.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 18 28.2 * 21 * 34 * 18 28.0 * 33 20.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.4 10.3 13.4 14.6 19.8 30.0 34.8 19.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 206 460 312 1 333 429 327 5 199 742 301 17 Future Volume (vph) 206 460 312 1 333 429 327 5 199 742 301 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 3400 3505 1568 1752 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 3400 3505 1568 1752 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 224 500 339 1 362 466 355 5 216 807 327 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 191 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 132 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 224 500 148 0 363 466 144 0 221 807 195 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 25.9 25.9 15.3 29.5 29.5 17.9 51.6 51.6 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 25.9 25.9 15.3 29.5 29.5 17.9 51.6 51.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 713 319 408 812 363 246 1420 635 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.14 c0.11 0.13 c0.13 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.09 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.70 0.46 0.89 0.57 0.40 0.90 0.57 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 56.2 47.1 44.6 55.2 43.3 41.4 53.8 29.2 25.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.7 3.1 1.1 20.4 1.0 0.7 31.5 0.5 0.3 Delay (s) 63.9 50.2 45.7 75.6 44.3 42.1 85.3 29.8 26.0 Level of Service E D D E D D F C C Approach Delay (s) 51.6 53.2 37.9 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.3 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 261 1157 220 Future Volume (vph) 261 1157 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 284 1258 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 80 Lane Group Flow (vph) 302 1258 159 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 49.2 49.2 Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 49.2 49.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 424 1354 606 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.93 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 37.4 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 11.2 0.2 Delay (s) 59.1 48.6 26.9 Level of Service E D C Approach Delay (s) 47.5 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue 04/10/2018 Mitigated Synchro 10 Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 423 386 161 154 282 189 166 236 161 169 202 245 Future Volume (veh/h) 423 386 161 154 282 189 166 236 161 169 202 245 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 436 398 166 159 291 195 171 243 166 174 208 253 Adj No. of Lanes 111121111111 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 476 599 509 197 582 261 205 317 269 211 323 699 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 1845 1568 1757 3505 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 436 398 166 159 291 195 171 243 166 174 208 253 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1845 1568 1757 1752 1568 1757 1845 1568 1757 1845 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.1 14.0 6.0 6.7 5.7 8.9 7.2 9.5 7.4 7.3 7.9 8.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.1 14.0 6.0 6.7 5.7 8.9 7.2 9.5 7.4 7.3 7.9 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 476 599 509 197 582 261 205 317 269 211 323 699 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.66 0.33 0.81 0.50 0.75 0.83 0.77 0.62 0.82 0.64 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 509 759 645 292 977 437 205 661 562 229 686 1008 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.6 21.9 19.2 32.6 28.6 29.9 32.5 29.7 28.9 32.3 28.9 13.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.7 1.5 0.4 9.7 0.7 4.3 24.4 3.9 2.3 19.8 2.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 7.3 2.6 3.8 2.8 4.1 4.9 5.1 3.4 4.7 4.2 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.4 23.4 19.6 42.4 29.2 34.2 56.9 33.6 31.2 52.2 31.0 14.1 LnGrp LOS D C B D C C E CCDCB Approach Vol, veh/h 1000 645 580 635 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 34.0 39.8 30.1 Approach LOS CCDC Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 18.9 12.7 30.4 13.0 19.2 24.6 18.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9.8 27.0 * 13 * 31 * 8.8 28.0 * 22 21.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 11.5 8.7 16.0 9.2 10.0 20.1 10.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.1 2.4 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak Mitigated 04/10/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L L T T R L L T T R UL T Maximum Queue (ft) 267 339 409 375 105 201 199 276 304 210 350 2153 Average Queue (ft) 195 197 163 122 39 118 123 201 215 63 244 900 95th Queue (ft) 270 296 285 223 78 184 180 282 283 131 438 1831 Link Distance (ft) 2582 2582 2487 2487 2396 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 225 250 250 250 150 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 8 8 3 2 25 1 0 50 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 16 9 7 43 2 0 89 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T R UL L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 2152 235 333 383 332 336 170 Average Queue (ft) 879 212 202 194 214 236 114 95th Queue (ft) 1805 303 289 286 300 322 225 Link Distance (ft) 2396 1718 1718 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 160 275 275 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 43 4212300 Queuing Penalty (veh) 150 23 9 5 6 58 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project AM Peak Mitigated 04/10/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 369 452 128 216 176 168 127 344 193 43 213 153 Average Queue (ft) 220 132 43 108 108 95 53 190 66 23 99 89 95th Queue (ft) 338 289 87 182 155 157 101 290 135 42 172 145 Link Distance (ft) 2487 2487 2613 2613 1938 565 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 3 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 0 6 6 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 154 Average Queue (ft) 97 95th Queue (ft) 150 Link Distance (ft) 565 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 459 Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak Mitigated 04/10/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L L T T R UL L T T R UL T Maximum Queue (ft) 158 131 255 241 296 265 292 252 231 186 349 505 Average Queue (ft) 101 84 162 139 158 141 161 132 132 87 211 209 95th Queue (ft) 137 126 227 214 260 220 242 208 206 145 321 331 Link Distance (ft) 2582 2582 2487 2487 2396 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 225 250 250 250 150 250 Storage Blk Time (%)10201061122 Queuing Penalty (veh)206020211445 Intersection: 1: Fowler Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T R UL L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 274 232 222 395 1058 1046 170 Average Queue (ft) 160 82 126 308 679 694 120 95th Queue (ft) 249 170 200 527 1037 1050 219 Link Distance (ft) 2396 1718 1718 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 160 275 275 120 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 45 54 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 0 126 119 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project PM Peak Mitigated 04/10/2018 Mitigated SimTraffic Report JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue (ft) 370 949 694 301 132 130 147 195 279 205 324 544 Average Queue (ft) 340 523 52 102 70 65 56 113 107 57 195 143 95th Queue (ft) 429 943 252 192 113 113 110 182 198 138 338 338 Link Distance (ft) 2487 2487 2613 2613 1938 565 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 300 130 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 58 1 2 6 0 18 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 226 6 3 18 1 37 0 Intersection: 2: Armstrong Avenue & Belmont Avenue Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 108 Average Queue (ft) 32 95th Queue (ft) 69 Link Distance (ft) 565 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 633 http://www.JLBtraffic.com 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93710 Page | I Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Appendix I: Signal Warrants 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93710 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Rural Areas) Existing Traffic Conditions 2. Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue AM (PM) Peak Hour AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Not Met PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Not Met Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals November 7, 2014 Armstrong Avenue Highest Approach Volume = 181 (78) VPH Belmont Avenue Total of Both Approaches = 559 (602) VPH 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93710 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Rural Areas) Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions 2. Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue AM (PM) Peak Hour AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Not Met PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Not Met Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals November 7, 2014 Armstrong Avenue Highest Approach Volume = 186 (93) VPH Belmont Avenue Total of Both Approaches = 574 (655) VPH 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93710 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Rural Areas) Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions 2. Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue AM (PM) Peak Hour AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals November 7, 2014 Armstrong Avenue Highest Approach Volume = 359 (253) VPH Belmont Avenue Total of Both Approaches = 1083 (1150) VPH 1300 E. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103 www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93710 Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions info@JLBtraffic.com (559) 570-8991 Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Rural Areas) Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Traffic Conditions 2. Armstrong Avenue / Belmont Avenue AM (PM) Peak Hour AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals November 7, 2014 Armstrong Avenue Highest Approach Volume = 532 (494) VPH Belmont Avenue Total of Both Approaches = 1587 (1595) VPH