The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTraffic Control & Signal Planst General The traffic control plan described herein shall be implemented in accordance with the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and applicable provisions of the TxDOT Barricade and Construction Standards, BC(1)-07 to BC(12)-07. Phase 1 - This phase is planned for completion within three weeks after receipt of approval to proceed from TxDOT. Construction Operations 1. Remove pavement, curb and sidewalk along the west side of Texas Avenue and the north side of University Drive 2. Southbound right turn deceleration lane and driveway on Texas Avenue 3. Additional southbound right turn lane on Texas Avenue. Depending upon letting of the traffic signal construction contract discussed below, this lane may remain closed until the new mast arm pole is installed and the existing pole removed from the northwest comer of the intersection. 4. Westbound right turn deceleration lane and driveway on University Drive 5. Westbound fire apparatus turnout on University Drive Traffic Control Operations 1. Close existing southbound right lane on Texas Avenue 2. Convert existing outside southbound through lane on Texas Avenue to throughlright turn operation 3. Close existing outside westbound through lane on University Drive west of Texas Avenue 4. Convert existing outside westbound through/right lane on University Drive to right turn only operation Phase 2 - This phase is planned for completion within two weeks after completion of Phase 1. Construction Operations 1. Remove pavement, curb and median on Texas Avenue 2. Extend median and restripe two-way left-tum lane on Texas Avenue Traffic Control Operations 1. Close existing inside southbound left lane on Texas Avenue 2. Close existing inside northbound through lane on Texas Avenue north of University Drive 3. Close existing inside northbound through lane on Texas Avenue south of University Drive Phase 3 - This phase is planned for completion within two weeks after completion of Phase 2. Construction Operations 1. Remove pavement, curb and median on University Drive 2. Additional eastbound left turn lane on University Drive 3. Close median opening on University Drive at former Meadowland Street Traffic Control Operations 1. Close existing eastbound left turn lane on University Drive 2. Convert existing inside eastbound through lane on University Drive to through/left operation 3. Close existing inside westbound through lane on University Drive east of Texas Avenue Phase 4 - This phase will be inflated after completion of Phase 3. Construction Operations — Microsurfacing in the following locations: 1. Southbound lanes of Texas Avenue north of University Drive 2. Eastbound lanes of University Drive west of Texas Avenue 3. Within the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue Traffic Control Operations — A specific traffic control plan for this construction will be discussed with the contractor and submitted to TxDOT and the City for review/approval at least three weeks prior to start of this phase Traffic Signal Construction Construction Operations 1. All traffic signal equipment at the intersection will be replaced by a contractor to be selected by the City of College Station. 2. The existing mast arm and pedestrian signal poles in the northwest comer of the intersection are located within the alignment of the proposed outside southbound right turn lane on Texas Avenue. Construction of the outside southbound right turn lane during Phase 1 will be coordinated with the signal contractor to accommodate the placement of the new poles. This may require maintaining barricades and signing to prevent use of the outside southbound right turn lane until the new signal poles are installed and the existing poles removed. Traffic Control Operations A traffic control plan will be developed by the signal contractor to be coordinated with the roadway construction phasing. This document is released for the purpose of interim review under the authority of John M. Mclnturff, P.E., P.E. No. 42461—Tx, on May 24, 2013. It is not to be used for construction or bidding purposes. HDR Engineering, Inc. loos Woodcreek Dr.. College StaUon. TX 77845 Tat: 979-693-58DO www.hdrinc.com I. TBPE firm RegistroUon No. 754 I ■ - v^ ^ _ _~�~�- ' ~~~�~-' � � LEGEND | (�) p 8CRCP �x � | IL 0` �� 'Hk� AY B\ — (n | PRIME COAT ^"/ (�) Ur CEMENT TREATED 3UBGRADE | .-I NE LANE F_ LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE 0. 0� 6-MONO CURB-(TY II) |E 0 W Bldg MEDIAN PAVERS 0" DOWEL CURB A == �� WlCRQ3URFACE SAWC (FULL DEPTH) / pw�_/ ,mxuu �ouDETAILo `—^ �x_/E� � DETAIL ^u' ^' omTovR DETAIL ^E-~----~^ (TO osREMOVE } ' TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION [A 5�65.56 TO STA 0+5551 ~ PROP MEDIAN ENDS AT STA. 0+5011 * PROP PYWT BEGINS AT STA 5+05.83 NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB. l PAVERS IN THE MEDIAN SHALL MATCH THE [X%SIINS MEDIAN PAVERS IN SHAPE, COLOR NwD-ALIGNMENT I PROPOSED PAVEMENT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURE: 9" CRCP PRIVATE UTILITY LINES SHOWN 0 AT LEAST 0 HOURS WORE EXCAVATAIG IN STREET ROX'OR MEDIAN or_ PRIME COAI ^ / 11�7 // LANE LANE LANE 'LANE LANE LANE LANE BEDDING AND CEMENT TREATED BASE. UJ Bldge CURB A�O. AND ROW WILL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCELANE ^~ WITH SITE PLAN PREPARED '^ / BY WITCHELL & W0R{AN AND PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CITY.00�pne—/ SAWCUT `^_'� � � 0i]—' (FULL DEPTH) DETAIL ^D^ 'UK., DEsammo" DATE CON. CH PROPOSED EXIST :vvv (TO BE OF EJA 0+65.51 TO 3TA O+3620 aim I' mr�l � mr, I I' SET TOP PA/ER UNITS 1/4!' ABOVE LANDSCAPE CURBCOMPACT TO CURBGRADE BEDDING CURB SAND SAWCUT �-2 J/{r CEMENT TREAT-[D BASE PAVER DETAIL TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS JUKE, 2013 INDEX OF SHEETS 1 TITLE SHEET 2 SIGNAL QUANTITY SUMMARY 3 EXISTING SIGNAL LAYOUT 4 PROPOSED SIGNAL LAYOUT 5 CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR SCHEDULES AND PHASING OWNER: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 PRFPARFII RY• STANDARDS* q oo/�HDR Engineering, Inc. C J` Lj� <,y 'S'��L�. ��j (� �Y,9 504 Lavaca Street, Suke t'175 G`AFA S�2 `t [b 8701 U O `� rFq ✓yli CT� Texas E 7F&m Reglatratton No. F 754 6 MISCELLANEOUS CITY DETAILS 1 OF 2) a, AF do Goy Fs 7 MISCELLANEOUS CITY DETAILS (2 OF 2) 51 9 ED(2)-03 �'�9��osT��'yF 10 ED(3)-03 ° o FRG�O C, 11 ED(7 )-03 ( ) O� `STgS yqC l P\� �QQ O� G�`� ' ��PtE OF Tfgstit 12-23 BC 1 —07 TO BC 12 —07 24 WZ(BTS-1)-03 25 WZ(BTS-2)-03 e- 9� � � o �. r..:................. -r ? i C! BENEDICT P PATRICK 26 SMA-80(1)-12 e � F �F F ,� 1.................:.............! 27 SMA-80(2)-12 rFT�o \ 9 �y2o 5y �g eic' !rt o 96710� 28 MA—C-12 's,�2�P�� GOsy�G �o9cE�o0�P�O �� A tl ��1Fss�CENSENG�� 29 MA—C(ILSN)-12 30 MA—D-12 .. 31-35 LMA(1-5)-12 VICINITY MAP 36 -TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATION - 37 MA—DPD-12 ---' SUBMISSION *CITY STANDARDS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER TxDOT STANDARDS WHERE AVAILABLE. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SUMMARY -UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD AT TEXAS AVENUE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 1 "R" STYLE NEMA TRAFFIC CABINET WIDETECTOR RACK, LOAD SWITCHES, EDI CONFLICT MONITOR (MMU-16LE) EA 1 2 SIEMENS 8 PHASE CONTROLLER, MODEL M-52 WITH FIBER PORTS EA 1 3 3-SECTION, 121NCH,BLACKLEDSIGNAL HEAD NLOUVERED BLACKALUMINUMBACKPLATE EA 18 4 5-SECTION, 121NCH,BLACKLEDSIGNAL HEAD WILOUVERED BLACKALUMINUMBACKPLATE EA 2 5 ASTRO-BRACCABLE MOUNT ASSEMBLY (AS-0125-3.84-PVC) EA 18 6 ASTRO-BRACCABLE MOUNT ASSEMBLY(AS-0125-5.84-PVC) EA 2 7 STREETSCAPE SIGNAL POLE, 24 FEET LONG, BRONZE, POWDER FINISHED EA 4 8 STREETSCAPE MAST ARM, 55 FEET LONG, BRONZE, POWDER FINISHED (W/DAMPNERS) & ILSN ARMS (BRONZE, POWDER FINISHED) EA 2 9 STREETSCAPE MAST ARM, 60 FEET LONG, BRONZE, POWDER FINISHED (W/DAMPNERS) & ILSN ARMS (BRONZE, POWDER FINISHED) EA 2 10 PULL BOXWITH LOCKING COVERTYPE D (PRINTON COVER- DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE TRAFFIC SIGNALS) EA 6 11 METERPEDESTAL POLE, 4 TERMINAL, 126 AMPTWIN LINK CONNECTORS Wl CONDUIT TO POWER EA 1 12 BC 100HZ BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM WITH CABINETAND FOUNDATION (PEEK BRAND) EA 1 13 CONCRETE SIGNAL CONTROLLER FOUNDATION EA i 14 SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATION, 48 INCH DIAMETER, 22 FEET DEEP EA 4 15 CONDUIT,2INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE40 PVC (TRENCH) LF 330 16 CONDUIT,2INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE40 PVC (BORED) LF 885 17 CONDUIT, 31NCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE40 PVC (TRENCH) LF 140 18 CONDUIT,3INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE40 PVC (BORED) LF 60 19 CONDUIT,4INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE40 PVC (TRENCH) LF 130 20 CONDUIT,4INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE40 PVC (BORED) LF 865 21 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR (NO.6) BARE LF 385 22 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR (NO. 6) INSULATED LF 770 23 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR (NO. 8) BARE LF 1,900 24 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABLE (TYPE A) (14 AWG) (5 CONDR) LF 1,750 25 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABLE (TYPE A) (14 AWG) (7 CONDR) LF 5,240 26 TRAY CABLE (12 AWG) (3 CONDR) LF 2,420 27 RADAR PRESENCE DETECTOR(RPD) (WAVETRONIX SMART SENSOR MATRIXWITH SMART SENSOR MOUNT)' EA 4 28 RADAR ADVANCE DETECTOR (RADD) (WAVETRONIX SMART SENSOR ADVANCE WITH SMART SENSOR MOUNTY EA 4 29 WAVETRONIX DETECTOR RACK CARDS (2-14-CHANNEL) EA 8 30 WAVETRONIX SENSOR CABLE JUNCTION BOX EA 8 31 WAVETRONIX INTERSECTION PRE -ASSEMBLED BACKPLATE-AC EA 4 32 PRION WIRE COMBO 2207-2002-PVCGYWAVETRONIX SMART SENSOR &CONDUCTOR CABLE (FOR RPD AND RADD DETECTORS) LF 2316 33 1 PRIORITY CONTROL SYSTEM DETECTOR (GTT OPTICOM MODEL 721) INFRARED EA 4 34 OPTICOM MODEL 764 MULTIMODE PHASE SELECTOR EA 1 35 OPTICOM INFRARED SYSTEM MODEL 760 CARD RACK EA 1 36 MODEL 138 DETECTOR CABLE (FOR GTT OPTICOM MODEL 721) LF 1,178 37 CONFIRMATION LIGHTS WITH POWER CABLE EA 8 38 ILSN SIGNS (LED,THIN PANEL TYPE) (6S) EA 2 39 ILSN SIGNS (LED, THIN PANEL TYPE) (8S) EA 2 40 PED POLE ASSEMBLY WITH 24INCH DIAMETER FOUNDATION, 6 FEET DEEP (BRONZE, POWDER FINISHED) EA 5 41 LED COUNTDOWN PEDESTRIAN MODULE (BLACK) EA 8 42 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL UNITS WITH INTEGRATED SIGNS (POLARA NAVIGATOR) EA 8 43 LEFT TURN SIGNAL SIGN (R10-10) (30" X 361 EA 4 44 NO TURN ON RED SIGN (1110.1la) (36" X48") EA 2 45 NO U TURN SIGN (113-4) (36" X 36") EA 4 46 REMOVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL EA 1 47 CAT 5 CABLE (TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING PTZ CAMERA) LF 140 48 MOBILIZATION LS 1 49 BARRICADES, SIGNS, AND TRAFFIC HANDLING MO 2 NOTE: ALL SIGNAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE AS PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS MOUNTING LOCATIONS WILL BE DETERMINED BY WAVETRONIX VENDOR TO ACHIEVE OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE. NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. EXISTING SIGNAL WILL BE OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES DURING PROPOSED SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION. 3. EXISTING SIGNAL TO BE REMOVED AFTER PROPOSED SIGNAL IS COMPLETE AND READYTO BE TURNED ON AND AFTER ROADWORK AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS (TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHERS) IS FINISHED. 4. SALVAGE EXISTING SIGNAL EQUIPMENT AS SOON AS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IS REMOVED AND DELIVER TO CITY. S DO NOT REMOVE GROUND BOXES THROUGH WHICH EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE RUNS AS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET. COORDINATE WITH CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE 6. THE SIGNAL CONTRACTOR WILL WORK IN TANDEM WITH THE ROADWAY CONTRACTOR SO THAT ALL WORK SEQUENCE AND TRAFFIC CONTROL IS COORDINATED. EXISTING SIGNAL - CONTROLLER WITH SERVICE METER EXISTING UPS- / 3 2 � LAIN 'I1X4 w few y MCUIHIV a N 8+00 m 2 P EXISTING ROADWAY ILLUMINATION _/I ASSEMBLY WILL BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED. SEE ROADWAY PLANS i FOR DETAILS. THIS WILL NOT BE PART OF SIGNAL WORK. I I I ' --l-t--A 1 2 2 2 1 9+00 I 2 3 NOTE 5 R.O.W. TEXAS AVE�-� 1 FIBER OPTIC �-- I�CABLE ROUTE o YYY1 I t 1 11 MEDIAN RELOCATE EXISTING PfL CAMERA TO PROPOSED POLE (SEE PROPOSED 1 SIGNAL LAYOUT) 1 — 1 1 ice% 1 � i i r as uc R.O.W. i i I � 1 I I 0 20' 40' LEGEND EXISTING SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATION AND MAST ARM 0 EXISTING PEDESTAL POLE 4- EXISTING SIGNAL HEAD T8- EXISTING PIZ CAMERA -4 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN HEAD ® EXISTING CONTROLLER 00 EXISTING UPS -¢- EXISTING LIGHT POLE �- - - -- RIGHT OF WAY TRAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION O EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL GROUND BOXES ® EXISTING FIBER OPTIC GROUND BOX - - - - - - - EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLE ROUTE —a-- EXISTING GAS LINE --- W EXISTING WATER LINE —E------- E— EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE GENERAL NOTES: 1. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THESE PLANS TO PROVIDE A FULLY OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANY ITEMS REQUIRED, BUT OMITTED ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND WILL BE SUBSIDIARY TO THE APPROPRIATE BID ITEM. Z LOCATION OF UTILITIES SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE DRILLING OR TRENCHING OPERATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING CM DEPARTMENTS: L CtTYENGINEERING OFFICE 764.35'70 IL CITY ELECTRIC ALDIST.OFFICE 7643674 IIL CITY WATERAVASTE WATER 7643638 N. CALL TEXAS 811 TO LOCATE ALL OTHER UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK V. PUBLIC WORKS 7643695 3_ MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 3 FEET RADIUS FROM NEUTRAL AND 10 FEET RADIUS FROM POWER LINES. 4. LOCATION OF SIGNAL POLES, GROUND BOXES, ELECTRICAL SERVICE, AND CONTROLLER FOUNDATION SHALL BE STAKED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOREMAN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5. ALL PVC CONDUITS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 AND GRAY IN COLOR 6. ANY EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKING, CURBS, SIDEWALKS, AND DRIVEWAYS DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED TO CRY STANDARDS AT CONTRACTORS OWN EXPENSE 7. PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AS SHOWN IN THE PLANS SO THAT THEY ARE ACCESSIBLE AND MEET THE ADA REQUIREMENTS, PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS WILL BE POLARA NAVIGATOR S. ALL CONDUITS IN NATURAL GROUND SHALL BE TRENCHED AND BURIED; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BACXFILI- COMPACT, AND RESTORE TRENCH AREA TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS AND MATCH EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS TO THE DENSITY OF ADJACENT AREA 9. ALL CONDUITS UNDER ROADWAYS AND PAVED SHOULDERS SHALL BE BORED. 10. ALL POLES AND BOXES SHALL BE GROUNDED. 11. ALL SIGNAL HEADS SHALL BE LED WITH 12 INCH LENS AS PER COLLEGE STATION STANDARDS. 12. CABLE FOR RADAR DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE 2INCH CONDUITS AS SHOWN IN THE CONDUCTORICONOUfT SCHEDULE. 11 CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL ONE 2 INCH CONDUIT FROM PEDESTAL ELECTRIC SERVICE METER TO POWER SOURCE POLE PROVIDE ADD DEGREE ELBOW AND TERMINATE THE CONDUIT6-8 INCHES ABOVE GROUNDAT THE POWER SOURCE POLE CAP THE CONDUIT. CITY SHILL INSTALL NECESSARY WIRING BETWEEN POWER POLE AND PEDESTAL METER COORDINATE WITH THE CITY ELECTRICAL DISTRIBLITION OFFICE TO OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS AND POWER SUPPLY FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNAL 14. ALL SIGNS AND BARRICADES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF TEXAS MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES IS. SIGNAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITH ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONAL SOUTHSOUND RIGHT TURN LANE AND ADDITIONAL EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE) TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY OTHERS 16. PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PEDESTRIAN RAMPS. AND ROADWAY GEOMETRY MODIFICATIONS WILL BE INSTALLED WITH ROADWAY WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY OTHERS 17. ALL SIGNAL POLES, PEDESTAL POLES, AND MAST ARMS WILL BE POWDER COATED BRONZE PAINT CHIP TO BE APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS. 18. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL GROUNDING ROD FOR ALL FOUNDATIONS. REFER TO STANDARD FOR DETAILS. 19. COVER PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS WITH BURLAP AND MAINTAIN UNTIL READY TO BE TURNED ON. 20. REUSE EXISTING PIZ CAMERA AND INSTALL ON NEW POLE F. CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS 45 HOURS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO COORDINATE PICK UP OF CAMERA FROM CRY 21. MAST ARM ON PROPOSED POLE AAND F WILL BE INSTALLED JUST PRIOR TO TURNING ON THE NEW SIGNAL SO THAT THE EXISTING SIGNAL ARM AND HEADS ARE NOT OBSTRUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 22. SIGNAL WILL BE INSTALLED AS PER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS. CITY STANDARDS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER TxDOT STANDARDS WHERE AVAILABLE TxDOT STANDARD CAN BE USED WHEN CITY STANDARDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE 23. PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS WILL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND WILL BEACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL UNITS. IF TWO ACCESSIBLE PUSH BUTTONS ARE SPACED LESS THAN 10' APARTOR ON SAME POLE, EACH ACCESSIBLE PUSH BUTTON WILL HAVE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES: 1) PUSH BUTTON LOCATOR TONE II) ATACTILE ARROW 13) A SPEECH WALK MESSAGE FOR THE WALKING PERSON INDICATION. AND W) A SPEECH PUSH BUTTON INFORMATION MESSAGE THE APB WILL BE PROGRAMMED BY A MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND TMUTCD. Z] � n Gzi I I I 70 TO 5 04 04 04 07 ' 07 £ SOURCE l ' 1 [ w w TURNING r► YOUCLFS PEDESTAL ELECTRIC METER [ Z N7'I `♦/ �} .� R70-15 Q TO (QUANTITY INCLUDED 2 i �j } IN ROADWAY PLANS) I P I I 77 I 14 f 1 3� 4POLE OLE D POLE A -'I' '- - 5 �� - - 4 `E- XISTNG ROyW` 15 ' / EXISTING R.O.W. _ 1 ! RADD ' RPD 1 XAS AVI RPD [ POLE C / SEE I ® CD � � ® ® S NOTE 21 1 I 16 i 06 I CAUTION WHILE RADD DRILLING. GAS LINE IS 1 06 1 ♦ ` PRESENT. [ �4J RADD- S- ♦ � v ♦ RPD [ 01 1 N ' — — — r ♦ ♦ 551 [ 5 8+Oo ss [ m ♦ e+oD . / 1S ! 01 02 NOTE 21 02 b j 5 I ©` `I i 0 1 P POLE '- i I � + t .6 -- ww w-- E �� ! i ♦ POLE F ` L POLE H o PISPROPOSED) P 8 12 i _ N R R.O.W. ! ��"� P8 `POLE t i [ 1 j O _ 6 19 P7 s 1 ® ® 7 a 70 18 � 4 S7551 9 7 DRILLING. UGAS NUNE ISLE K) PTA G [ RAD 03 03 081081008 I CI [ PRESENT. Win OI Z 0. ~ (QUANTITY INCLUDED ( IL ( IN ROADWAY PLANS) MAST ARM AND SIGNAL FACE LOCATIONS (N.T.S.) 55' ARM 11' 1 10' 1 11' 1 11' 1 POLE C RAID RPD POLE A -_ RAID RPO 4 ® �d 12' RPD 11' RADD (RADAR ADVANCE DETECTION /1 - DEVICE) 11' '.,. 13, RPD (RADAR PRESENCE DETECTOR) ® - m • - PREEMPTION DETECTOR 10' �d to' - SIGN ON MAST ARM ® 'n RADD ® ® ® ® © ® f f f. RPD POLE F _ RADD POLE G 1 12' 1 8' 1 10' 1 17' 1 60' ARM ILSN SIGNS University Texas Ave - 51 7i LTSIS� 500 �a 4.9-1--1 No OaOs. Wit. on C/aerS 6&9 L IS.t-�1 [19D d7y � s-Lr, [w] ae«as.H�rs-w No I Wd .. Wit. - G—N ((T.w.] deoM..Hq-3-NG [Ave] deuNa.N.y-3-W; S1 S2 University1Dr 500 s, Texas 400 51 7, IS.Sii�B r 78.4 L t261 12 1 47i ' IatL.L4.8-1-.1 6&4 L Ts6-1-1 No b dr Wit. o0 Grb 9 [U,,t—.,tr] awM. Hwy---N; [Dr] awma.Hry-3-W; No e«ac. xn8. w G..rn: [150G] a—t.»N.r-3-x: [Twos] 0-4-H,.r-3-1e [A.e] dw i-H.y-a-W: S3 E400] aeaKerH.r-3-xT S4 NOTEq:S SST7 pq(�p H'G pE SPACE UM'ITAF0AN RESTF2ICT HWOVERIV.L SiZESO)N SIGN •DER HEIGHT MAY BE USED WHEN 0 20' 40' POLE OFFSETS 15.5 � O POLE 13 U) 1 ' j POLE 0 S 116 :P2OLEA POLE C TEXAS AVE ^ 1, POLE E p 27' O:! _� IPCILEE 135' 2H POLE G .5, 6' /l1 20 ",11 i SIGNAL FACES r^a Of 1 1-11,%\ L\ I r PROPOSED SIGN ON MAST ARM * LEFT N 0 TURN TURN SIGNAL R D RIO-118 R 3-4 R10-10 ( *X S7 „) ( (INSTALL ADJACENT TO HEADS 14 & 15) SS S6 *LISF nnn 3M REF,. F(:TNF CHFFT mr LEGEND PROPOSED SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATION AND MAST ARM PROPOSED PEDESTAL POLE s- PROPOSED SIGNAL HEAD t PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN HEAD n PROPOSED GROUND BOX • PROPOSED PREEMPTION — PROPOSED SIGN ON MAST ARM — — — — — — PROPOSED CONDUIT RADD T PROPOSED RADAR AVANCED DETECION DEVICE RPD-c PROPOSED RADAR PRESENCE DETECTOR PROPOSED CONTROLLER W PROPOSED PEDESTAL METER [0 PROPOSED BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM OPROPOSED CONDUIT RUN NUMBERS ® PROPOSED SIGNAL HEAD NUMBERS EXISTING GAS LINE W EXISTING WATERLINE E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC RIGHT OF WAY TRAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION ®-- PTZ CAMERA (REUSE EXISTING) PROPOSED CONDUIT SCHEDULE . , ... ©©©000000�©®=a ©©o©©©oo ©Mo©©©©© ' .., •D.. ... ' " ' • i�i0©ofvi>EO©i>•©0©0©0©0©p©i>•i�©i>t©0� NOME 0oiiii�iiii©�©�©i©iiiiiiiiiiiil . ' • :: .'.. �©�i��iiiiiiiii0i©iiiiiiiiiiiil 0©ii�iiiiii�iiiiJ•�p�iipiiiiiiiil �iii�ii�il0iiii>•iii0iiiiiiiiii�il . . • ,, t�©ii�ii�iiiiii©i©i©iiidii)vii�il m 4©ii_��_iiii_�_i0i0i0i0_�ii_i_i_ii_i_iiiiil ., ,6 - • • • • - • . • . 6 PROPOSED POLE SCHEDULE CAS POLE A B C D E F 0 H 1 POLE TYPE Ll1A-00 PEDESTAL LWAM PEDESTAL PEDESTAL LMA-60 LW460 PEDESTAL PEDESTAL POLE HE 6 T (FI) 24 10 24 10 10 24 24 i0 10 MAST ARM LENGTH (Fn D 0 55 0 0 55 60 D 0 LUMINNREEXTEHSION NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO LIWMAW NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO FOLODATION TYPE 48-A 24-A 4&A 24-A 24-A 4M 4" 24A 2*A FOUDA7IONDEPTHn 2L0 6 no 6 6 210 210 6 6 CIRCUIT FlC SIGNAL CABLE. 7 CONK UAMG TRAFFICSIGNRL CABLESCgVOR, 1{AYIG Y CABLE, 3 COK0912 A No DIM PARE COMBO 220-2002-PVCGY �OPRCOM INFRARED SYSTEM MODEL 133 CABLE TRAY CABLE, 3 CONDR 12AMO CAT S CABLE TRAFFlC SICJW. HEADS PEDESTMAMMONAL HEADS ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN 31GNAL LMT RPDDANDRADD PREEMPHON ILSN 4 t f 2 1 t 1 5 3 1 2TRA 2 1 f Z / t 1 1 1 PQCAHERA t -----• ----••-- -> ...+ mac.•. w� alnlvvnlcua. Ott MIDCLLLANLOUS CITY DETAILS— STANDARDS. PHASE RING DIAGRAM PHASE RING BARRIER f61 d2 Of PHASES ON RING ONE 3 fd4 PHASES ON RING Two COLOR SEQUENCE CHART MGNALFACEn%W $ m 1,2 FC FT FR FR FR FR tR FR FAR fA tR f0. 3,4 G G G Y R R R R R R R R j 36 fR FR fR tR FR FR 60 FT FR FR FR Fq j 7,6A R R R R R R 0 G O 1' R R I 10611 fR fR FR FR fC 47 4R fR f0. FR FR FR 1213 R R G 0 G Y R R R R R R U,15 R R G G G Y 0.-. Y R R R R 16,17 I. FR 1 fR tR fR FR tR FR FR fR FG FT 14/6,20 R R R R R R R R G G 0 Y PHASING DIAGRAM 0 �4 J67 zz TEXAS AVE = PED 06 co X5 m s 02 a a OVERLAP—,PED 02 �1 0308 PHASING SEQUENCE SPED 02+d6 PED X2 + 05 03 + pr8 X4 + 08 w o j 1 a+ +a 07 + 04 �, THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT < TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE> February 17, 2012 THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT < TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS UPDATE> Prepared for Capstone / Woodridge Capital Partners, LLC Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 504 Lavaca Street, Suite 1175 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 904-3700 Facsimile: (512) 904-3773 Website: www.hdrinc.com February 17, 2012 THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT <TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS UPDATE> Purpose HDR Engineering, Inc. was retained by CapstoneMoodridge Capital Partners, LLC, to perform a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Plaza Redevelopment located in the northwest corner of Texas Avenue (Business SH 6) and University Drive (FM 60) in College Station, Texas. The TIA was submitted on January 11, 2012. The proposed development will replace the existing development on the site and will consist of two phases resulting in the following land use types and quantities on the site: student apartments with 595 dwelling units, residential condominium/townhomes with 16 dwelling units, specialty retail with 38,280 square feet and 25,520 square feet of restaurants. The revised concept plan is shown in Figure 1. This report has been prepared to update the original TIA and provide responses to City review comments received and discussed with staff on January 31, 2012. Several of the comments related to elements included with the original TIA with some responses provided on February 15, 2012 by letter to Jason Schubert from Veronica Morgan. This report provides updated traffic analysis information to support several of the responses. For completeness in response to City staff comments and ease in comparison and review of previous responses, this report provides analysis and support for responses and contains a list of the comments and complete responses thereto in the Appendix. HDR Engineering, Inc. t /3 M § \ | a?� y.6 lewo e _� _m• r a ._ v r \ )/ \ ( \ \\ \ § ® \ § E 6 M; ) _ a aBn ,{. ) �)\\ Existing Traffic Volumes Daily traffic volumes reported by TOOT are summarized in Table 1 Table 1. TxDOT Average Daily Traffic Volume Location 2010 2009 2008 2007 University Drive, West of Texas Avenue 30,000 38,000 39,000 41,000 University Drive, East of Texas Avenue 39,000 N/A` 37,000 39,000 Texas Avenue, North of University Drive N/A' 21,000 25,000 25,000 Texas Avenue, South of University Drive 46,000 N/A` 42,000 40,000 ' I WO I data unavailable at location Trip Generation Unadjusted total trips per day, as well as the peak hour traffic associated with the project, were estimated using the microcomputer program Trip Generation (Ref. 1), which is based on recommendations and data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report Trip Generation (Ref. 2). Table 2 provides a detailed summary of the estimated traffic produced by the assumed land use activities for the proposed development, summarized by Phases 1 and 2. Trip generation estimates were developed using rates and equations as recommended by ITE. As a point of reference, the total unadjusted trips per day are estimated at 8,471 vehicles per day (vpd) for this development. Table 2. Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed Land Use Size 24-Hour Two -Way Volume AM Peak PM Peak Enter Exit Enter Exit Phase 1 Apartments 383 dwelling units 2,340 36 139 135 75 Specialty Retail Center 38,280 SF 1,697 0 0 46 58 Quality Restaurant 6,380 SF 574 0 0 32 16 High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 19,140 SF 2,434 115 106 126 87 Subtotal 7,045 151 245 339 236 Phase 2 Apartments 212 dwelling units 1,295 20 77 75 42 Residential Condominium 16 dwelling units 131 2 10 9 4 Subtotal 1,426 22 87 84 46 Total 1 8,471 1 173 332 1 423 282 HDR Engineering, Inc. 3 Assumptions The traffic impact analysis process involves both the use of primary data and engineering judgment on transferable parameters. Specifically, engineering judgment is required for estimation of background traffic growth, pass -by capture, internal capture, and transit trip reductions, all of which are further described in the following paragraphs. Background Traffic — Table 1 summarized daily traffic volumes reported on TxDOT traffic maps. Based on these traffic volumes, a negative average growth rate of approximately two percent was observed between 2007 through 2010 in the vicinity of the site. To be conservative in this analysis, a three percent growth rate was assumed, based on demographic information obtained from Bryan/College Station MPO Transportation Plan (Ref. 3). Pass -By Capture — Studies have shown that retail land uses will capture from 20 to 60 percent of their traffic as pass -by trips, depending upon their size. It is well documented that many other land uses also experience significant pass -by trip capture, such as drive-in banks and restaurants. The amount of trip reduction that each tract may attribute to the pass -by phenomenon will depend directly on the type of land use that is developed. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Ref. 4) does not contain pass -by reductions for the specialty retail land use; however, data collected for shopping center land use suggest a 34% pass -by reduction in the PM peak period. In order to provide a more conservative analysis, the suggested shopping center pass -by capture was reduced by 50%. A 17 percent pass -by reduction in the PM peak was assumed for the specialty retail center land use for this project. Internal Capture — Once the total buildout of proposed land uses occurs, there will be interaction among the uses within this development. Internal capture is accounted for in two ways. First, to account for internal capture among similar retail land uses in adjacent areas, the sizes may be combined during the trip generation process. Because the equations used in trip generation estimations are logarithmic, the number of trips generated by a site does not increase in direct proportion to an increase in the square footage of a development. By combining retail projects in close proximity to each other, a lower number of trips will be estimated, thereby taking into account the internal capture factor. The second way to account for internal capture is to reduce the expected number of trips directly by some percentage, which reflects expected multipurpose trip -making among different types of land uses that are in close proximity. As with pass -by HDR Engineering, Inc. 4 Table 2. Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed Land Use Size 24-Hour Two -Way Volume AM Peak PM Peak Enter Exit Enter Exit Phase 1 Apartments 383 dwelling units 2,400 38 152 144 78 Specialty Retail Center 38,280 SF 1,697 0 0 46 58 High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant 25,520 SF 3,245 153 141 168 117 Subtotal 7,342 191 293 358 253 Phase 2 Apartments 212 dwelling units 1,329 21 84 80 43 Residential Condominium 16 dwelling units 131 2 10 9 4 Subtotal 1,460 23 94 89 47 Total 8,802 214 387 447 300 Table 3. Summary of Adjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed Land Use Size 24-Hour Two -Way Volume AM Peak PM Peak Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartments 595 dwelling units 2,591 42 170 150 81 Residential Condominium 16 dwelling units 91 1 7 6 3 Specialty Retail Center 38,280 SF 943 0 0 26 32 High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 25,520 SF 1,787 110 102 64 45 Total 5,412 153 279 246 161 trip reductions, internal capture depends on the type and quantity of land uses. For this project, a seven percent internal capture was assumed for all the proposed land uses only for the PM peak based on recommendations contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Ref. 4). Transit Trips — The provision of transit service to an area may reduce the expected number of trips by providing a mode of travel alternative to the private automobile. The reduction may be in two forms, either a reduction in site generated trips or a reduction in background trips. Bus service for the site will be available as follows: a. There is an existing TAMU bus route (04) along Hensel Drive and Moore Avenue with a stop at the intersection, immediately adjacent to the proposed parking garage and dwelling units in the northwest corner of the site. This route and stop will provide bus service for TAMU students on the site with easy access for pedestrians from the site. b. Brazos Transit District has three routes immediately adjacent to the site which provide service to TAMU (Ref. 5). The fixed routes travel the same path every hour on the hour. Riders may board the bus anywhere along the route as long as they are on the same side of the street as the entrance to the bus. TAMU students may ride free of charge with student ID card. c. Based on these bus routes as well as the most recent ridership information provided on TAMU's website (30% of Fall 2009 enrollment) (Ref. 6), a 20% transit reduction was assumed for both the AM and PM peak periods. Pedestrian/Bicycle Trips — Due to the proximity of the site to the TAMU campus, the nature of the proposed land uses, and student population, significant trips can be expected via bicycles, walking, skate boarding, etc. Based on information provided by TAMU Transportation Services (Ref. 6), 60% of students hold parking permits which means that 40% of students use an alternate mode of transportation which could be bus or one of the modes listed above. Based on this fact and the transit ridership noted previously, a reduction of 10% was assumed for both the AM and PM peak periods due to pedestrian/bicycle trips. Applying the reductions discussed above, the adjusted trip total for this project is 5,230 vpd. Table 3 provides a detailed summary of adjusted traffic at completion of both phases of the project. HDR Engineering, Inc. 5 Table 3. Summary of Adjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed Land Use Size 24-Hour Two -Way Volume AM Peak PM Peak Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartments 595 dwellinq units 2,640 42 163 147 82 Residential Condominium 16 dwelling units 91 1 7 6 3 Specialty Retail Center 38,280 SF 943 0 0 26 32 Quality Restaurant 6,380 SF 215 0 0 12 6 High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 19,140 SF 1,341 83 76 48 33 Total 5,230 127 246 239 156 Directional Distribution — Once site generated trips were known, the next step involved distribution of those trips to appropriate geographic directions and logical connecting roadways. The major thoroughfares that have a direct bearing on the accessibility of the project have been previously identified. Overall directional distribution of traffic was derived from turning movement data at the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive which were provided by the City of College Station. Forecasted directional distribution of traffic is presented in Table 4 below. Table 4. Forecasted Overall Directional Distribution of Site Oriented Traffic Direction/Roadway % of Site Traffic North Texas Avenue 15 South Texas Avenue 25 East University Drive 30 West University Drive 30 Total 100 Shared Parking Parking will be provided on the site within three parking garages with a limited amount of surface parking. Table 5 provides a comparison of proposed parking and required parking. In mixed -use developments with specific land uses identified in the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking report (Ref. 7), there exists a potential for utilization of adjacent parking spaces by more than one land use during the course of the day. This potential increases as the time between periods of maximum parking demand of each use increases. HDR Enaineerina. Inc. 6 The major factors in addition to land use which influence parking demand are captive market, automobile occupancy rate, non -auto trips, and seasonal variations. Captive market is the percentage of patrons, which are served by a second land use within the mixed -use development (i.e., residents shopping the same development where they live, retail patrons dining within the development). Automobile occupancy rate is a measure of potential trip reduction and parking demand, which can be satisfied by one vehicle and its associated parking space by providing service to an average of more than one person per vehicle. Non - auto trips are those external trips made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and bus patrons, which do not generate a need for additional parking spaces. The results of a study published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Ref. 8) provide documentation of the magnitude of captive market in mixed -use developments. Interviews conducted with several hundred persons entering mixed -use sites for a primary purpose determined percentages of those with multiple trip purposes or persons who represent a captive market. Based on the results of those studies, 27 percent captive market is associated with retail and food sales land uses, and 15 percent captive market is associated with restaurant land uses. Based on information provided by TAMU Transportation Services (Ref. 6), 60% of students hold parking permits which means that 40% of students use an alternate mode of transportation which could be bus, bicycle or walking. Based on the above factors, mode adjustment and captive market factors for all uses in this study were assumed to be a total of 15%. For the purposes of this analysis, adjustments may be made to account for automobile occupancies for each land use type. The ULI Shared Parking report suggests that average automobile occupancies are 1.8 persons/auto for retail uses and 2.0 persons/auto for dining/entertainment uses. In order to provide a conservative analysis, these assumptions were not incorporated into the analysis. Parking demand for some uses, such as office, does not vary by season. However, it has been found to vary for retail uses, which generally peak during the winter holidays, and restaurant and cinema uses, which are the highest during the summer months. The month of December was found to generate the highest demand for parking at this site. Using the values discussed above in the shared parking analysis results in a maximum parking demand of 1,827 parking spaces. Tabular and graphic summaries of the input values and results are provided in the Appendix. HDR Engineering, Inc. 7 Table 5. Proposed Parking vs. Required Parking Land Use Size Proposed Parking **Parking Req't DU *BR Rate Spaces Rate Spaces Apartments 595 1,871 1 per BR 1,871 1 per BR 1,871 Residential Condominium 16 64 1 per BR 64 1 per BR 64 Subtotal 611 1,935 Subtotal 1,935 Subtotal 1,935 Quality (25% of restaurant) 6,380 1/250 SF 26 1/65 SF 98 High Turnover/Sit-Down (75%of Restaurant) 1%140 1/250 SF 77 1/65 SF 294 Subtotal (40%of retail) 25,520 Subtotal 103 Subtotal 392 Specialty Retail Center (60% of retail) 38,280 1/250 SF 153 1/250 SF 153 Total Retail 63,800 Total 2,191 Total 2,480 BR - Bedrooms ** Section 7.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance Traffic Analysis The impact of the proposed development on existing area intersections was analyzed. Two (2) time periods and three (3) travel conditions were evaluated: 2012 Existing Conditions (AM peak and PM peak) 2013 Forecasted Conditions (AM peak and PM peak) 2013 Site Plus Forecasted Conditions (AM peak and PM peak) Intersection Level of Service Intersections are considered locations of principal concern because they are locations of highest traffic conflict and delay. The standard used to evaluate traffic conditions at intersections is level of service (LOS), which is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors such as speed, volume of traffic, geometric features, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, convenience, and operating cost. Two types of intersections include signalized and unsignalized, which use different criteria for assessment of operation levels. The control delay for this study was determined using the microcomputer program "Synchro 7.0" by Trafficware (Ref. 9), which is based on procedures contained in HDR Engineering, Inc. 8 the Highway Capacity Manual (Ref. 10). In general, overall intersection levels of service A to D are deemed acceptable, while an overall LOS of E or F is unacceptable. The TIA analyzed the signalized intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive and the two proposed unsignalized site driveways. The results are summarized in Table 6. The build -out condition level of service (LOS) assumes that all roadway and intersection improvements recommended in the TIA will be constructed. Table 6. Intersection Level of Service 2012 2013 2013 Site Intersection Existing Forecasted Plus Forecasted AM PM AM PM AM PM Texas Avenue and University Drive E E E F E E Texas Avenue Driveway A A University Drive Driveway A A Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Coordinate with TAMU on its planned development adjacent to and west of the site to explore mutually - beneficial access and circulation for transit, bicycles and pedestrians. This could include upgrade and extension of Hensel Drive to University Drive to accommodate bus route alternatives, shared bus turnaround off Hensel Drive, etc. 2. Provide incentives for non -auto use by patrons of the development such as adequate bicycle parking facilities, encouragement of bus use and car pooling. 3. In conjunction with the proposed driveway on University Drive, construct a westbound deceleration lane and restrict parking on the south side of the entrance road for a distance of at least 60 feet. 4. In conjunction with the proposed driveway on Texas Avenue, construct a southbound deceleration lane. 5. The existing raised concrete median on Texas Avenue north of University Drive should be extended approximately 110 feet to the north to preclude left turn maneuvers to/from the proposed site driveway. 6. Texas Avenue and University Drive - This intersection currently operates at LOS E during both the AM peak and PM peak periods. Assuming the same intersection geometry and signal timing, this HDR Engineering, Inc. 9 intersection will operate at LOS E and F under 2013 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during the AM peak and PM peak periods, respectively. With the addition of site traffic, this intersection will continue to operate at LOS E and F during the AM peak and PM peak periods, respectively. In order to improve traffic operations at the intersection, two improvements were evaluated as follows: a. Provision of an additional southbound right turn lane on Texas Avenue. As shown in the summary table in the Appendix, this improvement will decrease AM peak period delay by 2.0%; PM peak period delay will increase by 2.4%. b. Provision of an additional eastbound left turn lane on University Drive. As shown in the summary table in the Appendix, this improvement will decrease AM and PM peak period delay by 11.6% and 5.0%, respectively. c. Provision of both improvements will decrease AM and PM peak period delay by 12.7% and 5.2%, respectively. These improvements as well as the driveway recommendations are shown on the schematic in the 7. Hensel Street and Texas Avenue — There is a significant grade change between the profile on Hensel Street and the Texas Avenue cross -slope. Pavement gouges and scrapes indicate that some vehicle undercarriages drag when crossing the north/south gutter line along the west side of Texas Avenue. No sight distance or other traffic operational issues were noted. 8. No sight distance limitations or other safety factors were observed during field review of traffic operations at the following intersections: a. Hensel Street and Meadowland Street b. Hensel Street and Hensel Drive HDR Enaineerina. Inc. 10 References 1. Buttke, Carl H., "Trip Generation," Microtrans Corporation, Portland, Oregon, 2008. 2. Trip Generation, 8th Edition, An ITE Informational Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2008. 3. Bryan / College Station MPO 2005-2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Appendix C, Future Thoroughfare System 4. Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, An ITE Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., January 2004. 5. Brazos Transit District: http://www.btd.org/maps/find_fixed_route.asp 6. TAMU Transportation Services: http://transport.tamu.edu 7. Shared Parking, The Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, Second Edition, Washington D.C., 2005. 8. Trip Generation, An Informational Report, Update to the 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1995. 9. Husch, David and John Albeck, "Synchro 7.0", Trafficware Ltd., Sugar Land, Texas, 2007. 10. Highway Capacity Manual, (SR 209), Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000. HDR Engineering, Inc. i 1 Appendix 1. Shared Parking Demand Summary 2. Shared Parking Hourly Demand 3. Texas and University Delay Comparison 4. Conceptual Site Plan with Turn Lanes 5. Responses to review comments: TRANSPORTATION 1. The trip generation rates should use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report 8th edition. The rates used in the trip generation table do not reflect the 8th edition of the ITE report. Response: The TIA references on Page 11 include the 8t" edition of Trip Generation. Tables 2 and 3 of the TIA were developed using these rates and equations as recommended by ITE. 2. In the trip generation table please separate dwelling units per pad site. This will help should phasing the project become one mitigation option. Response: The trip generation summary in Table 2 consists of a tabulation of land uses and estimated trips for each phase shown in the Concept Plan. 3. Because the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive is already operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS), demonstrated strategies must be presented as part of the PDD to minimize further impact to University Drive and Texas Avenue. To satisfy the question that may be presented by Planning and Zoning or City Council, "why should we approve this if the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue is operating at unacceptable LOS", stating that this development adds less than the five percent of traffic as per the LIDO requirement threshold at such a critical intersection is not acceptable as a mitigation option and because this is a PDD rezoning request, traffic mitigation is part of the PDD negotiation process. Response: Item #6 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations describes two proposed improvements at the intersection which can result in a peak hour reduction in delay as much as 12.7%. Summary information and a graphic illustration of the improvements are included in the Appendix of the TIA. 4. Because the driveways proposed do not meet TxDOT spacing requirements and are subject to TxDOT permitting, all driveways to the site will have right turn deceleration lanes and must meet TxDOT right turn length requirements. As per TxDOT's request all driveways will be right in and right out only. To accomplish this on Texas the current raised median needs to be extended to the north past the proposed driveway location. These will be conditions for meritorious modification #4. Response: Recommendations for deceleration lanes at the proposed driveways are included as Items #2 and #3 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations and a graphic illustration of these improvements is included in the Appendix. 5. Staff recommends that Meadowland's current intersection with University Drive be retained to provide another access point to the site via eastbound University Drive. This would allow eastbound traffic from campus to avoid the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue providing some mitigation relief to that intersection. Furthermore, a public way projection to the HDR Engineerinq, Inc. 12 Texas A&M property along the former Meadowland Street will allow for an alternative route for traffic to avoid the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue. Both of these will be a condition for meritorious modifications #3 and will be considered a mitigation strategy. Response: As noted in response to Planning Comment #13, TAMU will not allow vehicular connections from the site to University property. We analyzed the provision of an additional eastbound to northbound left turn lane to quantify the reduction in delay resulting from this improvement as described in response to Transportation Comment #3. This will also allow additional capacity for eastbound traffic to access the site and provide improved operation at the intersection. As noted below in TxDOT Comment #1, TxDOT agreed with the planned access drive from FM 60. Maintaining the Meadowland Street intersection will result in two access points within 450 feet on University Drive. As noted in Item #1 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations, continuing discussion will be held with TAMU to consider a joint effort for upgrade and extension of Hensel Drive to University Drive to accommodate bus route alternatives. This would provide a better location for a public street intersection and median opening on University Drive. As such, our request for the block length variance along the Texas A&M University property line stands and we do not intend to keep Meadowland in its current location. 6. With the additional ROW dedication on Texas Avenue, a dual right turn lane configuration southbound to eastbound should be explored as a mitigation strategy and could satisfy meritorious modification #6. Response: As clarified with the Transportation Planner at the 1/31 meeting, the concern is southbound to westbound traffic. Item #6 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations describes this as one of two proposed improvements at the intersection which can result in a peak hour reduction in delay as much as 12.7%. Summary information and a graphic illustration of the improvements are included in the Appendix of the TIA. HDR Engineering, Inc. 13 r!! , ffi ------ H- � [30: 3 a 0 0 0 0 N O N N I-z 4dz e ""le 0 has c E a � O o N C T U td N N Ln t � U p i i a — a pcn p rn M C CO O J W w � m E � c }�LUO m w o Cl) w E a d L6 L `o U p W -co p a U rn o O J W w O d J � I-- U a N m � m E C W L�- O + 0 N p 0 r � w E a � O N � O U p w it m ua aC U _c E O O w W m U U w N p G N + m n a 0 19 in N N N p V M J p � E a L 0 U p W a T � OJ m m0 C O w Itl N + o E co d N co N M n U) O W w a ^ N U R (n U O N a � ui m /i 2'x yrvc+t,s � °. � W 0IL zw _ j Q � >E U 0- f y�t ' 'zy{�M,j� y 6 'a4:"I.a PAN 41 a. § f ty { , 2 L` 31 3joy M 5. YY ,..,a,m ,�, ms.._..,',a'_ a ,.., �,.a,. x. � �. i _ _€ ,...'mac-._,. '"'"/'�.., �} /-A rv£=._.:'m .., ....'�T' i, �":'�J'#'_�4'.. Tf• /� Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2012 AM Existing t -► 'r '- t -\ t 1. 1 -' Lane Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 295' , 390 215 0 235 J35 .+' 220 " , 22 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 %- 25 "'25 25 25 . 25. " 25 ' 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Ftt" 0.850 0.988, 0,850, %' 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd."Fl6w(prot)" 1770 5085 " 1583 3433 .' 5024 0" '3433' -3539 1583 3433 = 3539, ` 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 ru 40 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 729 272 210 1867 0 714 744 292 245 489 292 Turn Type Prot Free Prot. Prot ' pm+ov ( Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Permitted Phases Free 6 2- Detector Phase 2 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 swi(ch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 , 31,0 ' 14.0 34.0 14:0 34,0 14.0 : `14., 31.01 14.6 Total Split (s) 18.0 44.0 0.0 18.0 44.0 0.0 29.0 40.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 18.0 Total Split e1Q) " 15.01Q" 36.7% " 0,0% 15i0% 36.7°l0 0.'0% 24.2% ; 33.3% 15.0% 15.01 24.2/0 =15.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 12.0 , 2.0 _ 2.6 2.0 m 2.0" . 3.0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) `. ,6,0 6.0"' 4.0 6,0 - " 6.0 4,0 5.0 ' 6.0 60: 6.0 % 6,0 6.t1 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes '- Yes ' Yes. Yes Yes" Yes. Yes ' Ye's Yes .. Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None C-Min None Act LifaGreen (s) I!'A . 40,3 120.0 11.8 40.7 23.0 ,; 32.1 49,4 11.8', 20.9 ,38.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.34 1.00 0.10 0.34 0.19 0.27 0.42 0.10 0.17 0.32 v/o Ratio ' 0,75' 0,43 ' 0,17 0.62 , � 1.09 1.09 .: 0.79, 0,43 , 0,72 0 .70 0.58 Control Delay 79.0 32.3 0.2 60.6 88.3 106.0 47.4 22.4 65.5 57.5 38.4 Queue Delay 010 0,0 'i 0,0 0.0 0,0 'i 0.0 0,0 0,0 `' 6.0 0 0 - 0.0 Total Delav 79.0 32.3 0.2 60.6 88.3 106.0 47.4 22.4 65.5 57.5 38.4 Internal Link Dist (ft) 530 482 588 464 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2012 AM Existing s -• --t f- {- `\ t / ` `- 1 ,/ t�:i[drB=�Al Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.43 0.17 0.60 1.09 1.09 0.74 0.42 0.71 0.72 0.57 S, Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 29 (24%)„Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cvcle: 130 Maximum Snlits and Phases, 3* University Drive & Texas Avenue of 4 o2 � m3 F o4 29 s IM29 s 1 1111118's I44 s o5 �`' m6 ff m7 188 1 11119s I44s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchrc 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2012 PM Existing 'y -O. -'V j 4-- {-- 4\ 1 /a' \ -V Lane configurations t?f p 1) tit+ M ff r �►� Volume (vp6) 243 ' 1721 ,930 297 - 753 ' . 1921: i 629 575 362 s 306 Ideal Flow NODI) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1 Fit Protected 0,950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1776 5085 1583 s,3433 .492$` 0 d43S 3539, 1583 ' 15433 . 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 610 562 668 544 Travel Time (s) 10.4 9.6 11.4 9.3 Paak'Hour Factors 0.92 0.92' 0.92, 0.92 0.92` ,0,92 0.92 0,92' " 0.92;,,` 0;92 0.92 0,9 Adj. Flow (vph) 264 1871 1011 323 818 209 684 625 393 333 788 191 Shared Lane TrafOc ON , Lane Group Flow(vph) 264 1871 1011 323 1027 0 684 625 393 333 788 191 Turn Type- Prot, Free Prot Prot pin+ov '; Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Permitted Phases Free 6 3 Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Switch Phase . Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum,Split (s) 14A nos" 14.0 `, 34;0 _, 14.0 34.0 14 0 -�` ')410 31.0 ',- 14.0 Total Split (s) 34.0 47.0 0.0 20.0 33.0 0.0 29.0 46.0 20.0 17.0 34.0 34.0 Total Split (%) 26,2%' 36.2% -0.0"/v 154%1 25.4%'s: so,O% 22.3% 35.4% 15.4%u 13.1% 26.2% 200o Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) "2,0 .2.0 _ 2.0 2A r 2,0 20 2.0 - _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adiust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Min None Min Total Delav 73.0 122A 2.0 80.9 51.9 124.7 40.4 28.4 150.8 91.2 Internal Link Dist (ft) 530 482 588 464 None HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2012 PM Existing 758 Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 {Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 1.17 0.64 0.87 0.83 1.13 0.57 0.54 1.15 1.03 0.25 Area Tvi)e: Other Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.7% ICU Level of Service F Queue shown is maximum after two Queue shown is maximum after two Snlifs and Phases 3' 1Inivprsity ndve R Texas Avemie m1 4 m2 m3 m4 29 s 34 s 1 M34=s 1 IM33 s m5 * 1'' 06 )8 17 s I M46s I IM20's I IM47 s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM Forecasted Lane Configurations ) TT4 r ► ) TTT* tt r )I tf Volume(vph)103 ", 601 -225 , 173 1415-_ 123 688 '613 ' 241 202 402 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1583 " 3433 5024 - 0 - 3433 `3539 15'83 3433 " 3539 .1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd, Flow (perm) 1770 5085 `" 1583 " 3433 ' 5024 0 ;3433 ' " 3538 1583 `;3433 ; 3539" ' 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Al, 12 43 '. 2 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 610 562 668 ' "544 Travel Time (s) 10.4 9.6 11.4 9.3 Peak Hour Factor 0,80 ` -:0.80, 0.80 . 0.80 0.80 '0.80' 0.80 0.80 0.80 ` 0.80 A.80 " 0,66 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 751 281 216 1769 154 735 766 301 252 502 301 Shared Lane Traffic (°/u) Lane Group Flow (vph) 129 751 281 216 1923 0 735 766 301 252 502 301 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Prot pmtov ' Prot pm+off Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Permitted Phases Free 6 '2 Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Splits) 14.0 31.0 i -14.0 .34.0< 14.0 34.0 14.0 14.031;0;". 14,-0 Total Split (s) 18.0 44.0 0.0 18.0 44.0 0.0 29.0 40.0 18.0 18.0 29.0 18.0 Total Split (4l0) 15.0°% '36.7% " .0.00)0 ` 15 0% - 36.7%> 0.0°% 24.2%u 331% 15A°/6 ,15A% 24-n- ' 15.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 .20 ' ' 2.6 2.0 2.0 ' 2.0 `2,0 i. 2.0 • . 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 . 4,0 6.0, 6.0; 4.0 6,0 ; ,6.0 6.0 6.0 6A fi.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lay Optimize?]. Yes as "' Yes Yas+ `,Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None Min None Act EffotGreen (s) A 1.2 37.7 -; 117.1 11.6 38.1 4.'0 32 0 49.6 11.8 20,8 .38.0 Actuated q/C Ratio 0.10 0.32 1.00 0.10 0.33 0.20 0.27 0.42 0.10 0.18 0.32 Total Delay 79.8 33.0 0.2 60.4 120A 105.6 46.4 22.4 64.6 56.7 37 Internal Link Dist (ft) 530 482 588 464 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM Forecasted Turn Bay Length (ft) 205 390 215 235 235 220 225 Base Capacity(vph) 182 1653 1583 352 1641 675 1029 701 352 696 526 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.45 0.18 0.61 1.17 1.09 0.74 0.43 0.72 0.72 0.57 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 . Actuated Cycle Length:117.1 Natural Cycle:140 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum We Ratio:1.17 Intersection Signal Delay: 74.0 Intersection LOS: E Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infi it Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may; Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Rnlits and Phases• 3l lniversity Drive & Texas Avenue II of .+ 02 Y m3 o4 29s M29 s 1 W118's 1 IM44 s o5 t' m6 *_ a7 1� 08 18s I M140 s I IM18`s I M44 s HDR, Inc. 212912012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM Forecasted r --], --* f- 4- *\ t 1,- 1 41 Ideal Flow (vIphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length- (It') 2015 396- -215 0 2135 235 j 220 225 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 U50 Satd, Flow (prot) 1770 5085- 1583 . .3433 ' 4933 0 3433 3539 1683 3433 :,3539 , 1160 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Permitted Phases 11 : �, Free ' 1 11, 1 11 -, - -, 11: il - - '6,, : , I ' I : " 2 Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 §Wkfi phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.6 8.0 8.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 All -Red Time Z01 "� 2.0, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 U 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.32 1.00 0.11 0.24 73.5 136.1 2.2 4.0 4.0 None Min None None Min 123.0 :, ,40.0 '60.0 11.0 - X0 0.18 0.31 0.46 0.08 0.22 Total Delay 73.5 136.1 2.2 84.6 54.5 136.1 407 28.9 160.9 99.8 22.9 Los:- F, -A Fb F b, c F F C , I : Approach Delay 87.8 61.7 76.3 104.0 307 -361 241 241 -177 Internal Link Dist (tt) 530 482 588 464 HDR, Inc. 2129/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM Forecasted * 381 1604 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.71 1.20 0.66 0.90 0.87 1.16 0.59 0.55 1.18 1.07 0.26 �nfeYsedtlog SUirlYl3n/. .S ,� . :. w .. r, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Snlitc and PhaePQ 3- I Inivprcity nrivp A Texas Avenue ml 4 m2 m3 F m4 29s 1 M34 s 34isI LU33 s m5 m6 0 0 08 17 s I M46 1 EN20's I IM47 s HDR, Inc. 2129/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013AMS+F Frt 4:850 0.988 0.850 0.$50 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd,"Flow(ptot)" 1770 -5085 '1583 3433 5024; 0 '3433 ' 3539' 1583 ''3433 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0,950 0.950 0.950 0.950 8atd. Flow(perm) ; ' 1770 5085 " 1583 3433 "5024' 0 3433 3539 = 1583 ;3433 3539. 1583 Riqht Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 40 Link Distance (ft) 238 Travel Time (s) 4.1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 751 281 216 1980 0 774 776 301 356 590 319 Turn Type Prot Free ''Prot Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Permitted Phases Free 6 3 Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 &0 8.0 Minimurtl Split (s) ; 14.0 31.0 } 14.0 x0 - 14.0 . 34.0 '10 + 14:0 - 31 0 '- 10, Total Split (s) 18.0 58.0 0.0 21.0 61.0 0.0 38.0 48.0 21.0 23.0 33.0 18.0 Total Split (°!o)' 12.0% 383% OA% 14 6% 40.7%` 0.010 25.3% , 32.0% ,14A% "15.3% 22.0% 12.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2,0 2.0 2.6 2.0 i 2,0 210 20 - . 2.0 2 0 16 Lost Time Adjust is) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (6) " ; 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 . .6.0 "Lead 640 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes, 11 Yes 1 -Yes Yes Yes "'I Yes ' :Yes', Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None Min None Act Eftct;Green (s) 12.V 52.9 j149.6, '14.1 55,0 32.0 41,0' 61.7 11.1Z0..266 44.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 U5 1.00 0.09 0.37 0.21 0.28 0.41 0.11 0.18 0.30 vcRe 1.31 042.,0.18, 0 0.79- 044 0.1 0.@4tio 0,62 Control Delay 230.6 37.8 0.2 76.0 86.4 103.8 56.7 28.2 93.2 83.7 53.8 Queue Delay 10' 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 -' 011 6 0.0 Total Delay 230.6 37.8 0.2 76.0 86.4 103.8 56.7 28.2 93.2 83.7 53.8 LOS, " F D"j A E F� F E C F' E D Approach Delay 58.6 85.4 71.8 78.8 ApproachLOS E F' "., E E Queue Lenqth 50th (ft) -234 206 0 106 -782 -426 370 173 180 303 272 Internal Link Dist (ft) 158 482 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013AMS+F Base Capacity (vph) 142 1797 1583 344 1854 734 994 691 390 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .31 0.42 0.18 0.63 1.07 1.05 0.78 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:149.6 Natural Cycle:150 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Intersection Signal Delay: 75.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 shown is maximum after two Queue shown Snlits and Phases. 3. 1Iniversity Drive R Texas Avenue I �+ m2 � m3 4—m1 m4 38s 1 M33s 1 M613 m5 f m6 23 s I M48 s I M21 s 1 VA58 s HDR, Inc. 2129/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 7: Hensel Drive & Texas Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013AMS+F -�* --* 4\ t 1 r Grade A"/o 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 42. 24 '63 839, .862' 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) 42 cSH 373 772 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0;18 . 6.08 425 125 . 0,34 - � 0,1T Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 7 0 0 0 0 C Approach LOS C t ecd'onStimmatY��NNE— e��914WOM� HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 13: Hensel Drive & Meadowland St HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013AMS+F Sion Control Free Free Stop Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (uph) 0 0 69 0 0 65' Pprlpgfrinnc vCu, unblocked vol 0 136 u tC, single (s) U 6.4 U tC, 2 stage is) p0 queue free % 96 100 94 cM capacity (vehm) 1623 , 819 1085 j Volume Right 0 0 65 cSH 1700 1623 1085 Volume to Capacity uo o`.k 0,06 Queue Length 95th (it) 0 3 5 Control Delay (s) i 0,0 7.3 8.5 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0,0 7,3 8.5 Approach LOS A )nter5�Cu0Cr-�u1�illary' � HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 9: Driveway A & Texas Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013AMS+F Houdyflowrate(vph)i, 0, 14Z- '0 902 87016 , Pedestrians tLane Width (ft) unblocked 0.81 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 5.8 p0 queue free % 100 75 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 35111562 760 , Approach] Delay (s) 13.6; 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.0 Analysis Period (min)_ 15 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 11: University Drive & Driveway B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013AMS+F Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 09% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 aM capacity (ve61h) 395 77 701 Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay,(s) 0.0 0.0 10.7 Approach LOS B (trt�Fse�kfon�`Omns'ary a � � w � � '• _fi ti.. --, +c. ��?t HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM S+F r --I, --t 'r 4- t .0\ t Frt i 0.850 0.969 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 _ 1583 3433 4928 ° 0 3433- 3539 1683, 3433 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40 Lane Group Flow (vph) 352 1927 1041 333 1140 0 758 658 405 395 855 207 Turn Type Prot ' Free Prot Prot pm+ov i Prot pm+ou Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Permitted Phase$ Free 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14 0 31.0 14.0 34.6 14.0 34.0 ; , %0 ' 14.0 31,.0 , ` 14.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 56.0 0.0 18.0 39.0 0.0 35.0 48.0 18.0 28.0 41.0 35.0 Total Split (o 23.3°/n 37.3% _ 0.0% 12 0% 26,0% 0.0% 23.3% 32.0%' 12.0% ' 18.7% 27.3% ' 23.3% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red lime (s) 2,0 2,0 2.0 2.0 j = 2.0 2.0 -2.0 2,0 2.0 2:0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (a) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 ' 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 ' . 6,Q 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes`!.' Yes- ` Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None C-Min None Internal Link Dist (it) 158 482 588 290 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM S+F -,* -• --* 4� '- t 4\ T `- l -' Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.03 1.14 0.66 1.21 1.02 1.14 0.65 0.62 0.78 1.04 0.28 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:160 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset. 34 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio 1.21 Intersection Signal Delay: 85.6Intersection LOS: F Intersection Caoacitv Utilization 104.6% ICU Level of Service G - Volume Snlits and Phases, 3I lniversity Drive & Texas Avenue ' 1 ml �� m2 � 03 F m4 35 s 1 111411 s 1 35 s 1 L1139 s 05 Tt' m6 I *f m7 m8 28 s 1 11148 s I IA18 s 56 s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 7: Hensel Drive & Texas Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 PM S+F * 4\ T Hourly ftv rate (vph). � , ` 24 14 ; 101 ` 1941 - 1270.1 9 ' Pedestrians unblocked 2 stage (s) 5.8 p0 queue free % 87 97 81 cM capacity (veh/h) = 189 418 : ,539 i Left 24 101 0 0 0 0 237 539 1700 1700 1700 1700 14 17 0 0 0 Lane LOS C B Approach pelay(s) 230 12 0:0 ±" Approach LOS C HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 13: Hensel Drive & Meadowland St HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 PM S+F Sign Control Free Free Stop Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 vC, conflicting volume 0 220 0 vC1. staoe 1 coot vol Volume Right 0 0 38 Lane LOS A A Approach LOS A HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 9: Driveway A & Texas Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 PM S+F Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 370 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 4 conNcting volume 1842 642 1284 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1271 vC2, stage 2 cent vol t671 vCu. unblocked vol 1624 642 1284 p0 queue free % 100 80 100 cM capacity (veh/h) ' 216 417 536 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 VolumeRight 82 - 0a 0,. `0. 26' - cSH 417 1700 1700 1700 1700 Lane L06 C Approach Delay (s) 157. 0.0 0,0 Approach LOS C HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 11: University Drive & Driveway B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 PM S+F .s _,,, •— 4., 1. 4/ Lane Control Free vC, conflicting volume 1722 2430 592 cM capacity (vefim) 543 48 863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Control Delay (s)'1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 9.4 Lane LOS A A )rtibicrkfircn �- HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM S+F (with SBR) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storagel-ength'(ft) 106 0 215 0 235 235, 220= 229 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said: Flow(prot) 1;'70 . 5085 ; 1583 - 3433 5024; 0 3433 35319 " 1588 3433 3539 " 278z Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 17j0 , 5085 ' 1583 3433 " 5024 ." ,0 - 3433 " "8539 1583 3433 3539 ' 2787 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) : ' 270 11 f 49 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 238 868 "' 370 Travel Time (s) 4.1 9.6 11.4 6.3 Peak Hour Factor '' 0r80 0.80 0.80 0.80 , . 0.80: 0,80' 0.80 "' 0.80 0.80 . ' 0,80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 186 751 281 216 1815 165 774 776 301 356 590 319 Shared Larie Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 751 281 216 1980 0 774 776 301 356 590 319 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Prot pm+ov " Prot" pt+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 23 Permitted Phases ""_ Free 6 " Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 23 Minimum 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 rr Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None Min Total Delay 231.3 37.9 0.2 76.1 87.0 104.3 56.5 28.2 93.6 82.6 42.4 LOS,, =: ;`F D A E F F E F Approach Delay 58.7 65.9 71.9 75.6 Approach LOS E F ` E E" Queue Length 50th (ft) -234 206 0 106 -782 -426 370 173 180 303 138 Queue Length 95th (ft)#337 215 0 133 #684:' #451 , 385 218 " #221 326 964 Internal Link Dist (ft) 158 482 588 290 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM S+F (with SBR) Base Caoacitv(voh) 142 1794 1583 343 1851 733 992 692 389 638 819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.31 0.42 0.18 0.63 1.07 1.06 0.78 0.43 0.92 0.92 0.39 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 149.8 Natural Cycle:150 Intersection Signal Delay: 74.9 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analvsis Period (min)15 after two Queue shown is maximum after two Snlih and Phases• 3I Inivprsity Drive & Texas Avenue 01 o2 03 +1- o4 38s 1 W133 s I 18 s= 61 s o5 t o6 O o7 08 23 s I M48 s I M 21 s 58 s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM S+F (with EBL) Lane 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 100_. 0 215 0 : 235 235 220 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 At Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said,Flow (prot) 3433 5085 . 1583 j3433 6024 0 3433 " 3539 1583 " 3433 " 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40 Link Distance (tt) . - ? 238 562 1668 370 '. Travel Time (s) 4.1 9.6 11.4 6.3 Peak Hour Factor, 0.80 0.80 "; -0,80 0,80' ,' V 0.80" . 0,80 ' 0.80 0.80 0.80 1 0.80 " ". 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 186 751 281 216 1815 165 774 776 301 356 590 319 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 751 281 216 1980 0 774 776 301 356 590 319 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Prot pm*ov Prot - pm+oti Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Permitted Phases Free 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14,0 31.0 14.0 34.0' 114.0 34.0 " 14,0 i, 14.0 31`.0 -14.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 57.0 0.0 21.0 63.0 0.0 40.0 48.0 21.0 24.0 32.0 15.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 38.0% A.0% .14 0% 42.M, 0.0% ' 2¢,7°/u <, 2,0%° 14,0% ' 36A% 21.3% . 10.0°/q Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All•Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0. 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0' 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0, 6.0 , 4.0 • 6.0 - 6.0 i 4,0. 6.0 6.0 - 6.,0 6.0 6.0 " 6,0 None Internal Link Dist (tt) 158 482 588 290 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM S+F (with EBL) -,* ---• --* f- 4\ T /� \*. 1 ,1 Base Capacity (voh) 206 Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio C tntersackion:ummafYu Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length:150 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to pha Natural Cycle:140 Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay: 66.9 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 — Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. volume exceeds Splits and Phases: 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue 0.86 0.96 m1 m2 m3 F m4 40 s I IM32 s 15 s 1 M63s 05 f 06 r'rf m7 --� 08 24 s 1 IM48 s 21's 1 IM57 s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM S+F (with EBL and SBR) -.4 --1, --* 'r '-�, T /- \. 1 Lane on Lane Group Flow Turn Type Protected Phases Total Split (s Total Split (° Yellow Time All -Red TIME Lost Time At Total Lost T Lead/Lag Lead -Lag 01 Recall Mode 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 100`" 0."215 0 235 2 1 2 0 2 0.950 0.950 0,950 3433 5085 158'3 ",3433 ' 5024 0 11 3433 0.950 0.950 0.950 3433 5085 1583 3933 '5024" 0 - 3433 Yes Yes 40 40 238 562' _ 4.1 9.6 0.80 0.80 0,80 ; 0.80 0.80 ` 0,80 oo 186 751 281 216 1815 165 774 186 751 281 216 1980 0 774 Prot Free " Prot Prot 3 8 7 4! 1 -:3 Free 8 7 4 1 1 2 2 25 " 25 25 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 850. 0.854 " 0.950 583 3433 3539 2787', 0.950 583' 3433 3539 " 2787 Yes Yes 1W 6 7 5 2 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2,0 20 2.0 2. `0 .. 2.9 20 2.0 '! -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 ' 6.0 ' 4.0 E,0. 6.0� 4.0 6.0 '6.-0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,6, ;ad Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag (as Yes Yes Yes'" Yes, Yes Yes Yes Yes me Min None Min None Min None None C-Min 8.2 51.0 150.0 14,1 57.0i 34.0 43.6 63.1 ' 17,9 26.8 41.0 .05 0.34 1.00 0.09 0.38 0.23 0,29 0.42 0.12 0.18 0.27 Total Delay 134.1 39.5 0.2 76.2 74.6 88.3 54.8 28.1 K2 82.8 45.5 LOS ' F" . ' D A E " E' .. F" D C ` F . F p: Approach Delay 44.9 74.8 64.5 74.3 Approach Los E E " Queue Length 50th (ft) -98 210 0 106 --757 393 366 174 179 303 142 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4152 219 0 ' 133 °" 655° 4427 381 219 207 3126 . " 169, Internal Link Dist (ft) 158 482 588 290 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 AM S+F (with EBL and SBR) -'' --I, ---t 'r t 4\ Area Type: Other Cycle Length:150 Actuated Cycle Length: 15.0 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay: 66.2 Intersection LOSE Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E — Volume 95th Splits and Phases: 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue m1 14 m2 m3 ►-- I m4 40 s 33 s I 14's 1 W63 s m5 * I'" 06 O m7 1� 08 24 s I 11149s 1 1121's 56 s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM S+F (with SBR) Lane GCC4 p� �� `�L��EE4j'�EBR�yVt3L'`WBT��113R��i+lEL�1�R`f ��Nt3R��li m�T�Sgf� Lane Configurations ►j Ttt r M ttT* tit) tT r 11 tt rig volume (vph) " 324 1773 '_ ' 958 306 ' 8353 213 : 697 605 373 363 787 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage'Lehgth (ft) S' 100 0' , 215 0 235: 235 ; 220 ' 225 Storage Lanes 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 Taper Length (ft) 5 25 ' 25,: 25 '. 126 -' 25 25 ." 25 Lane LIM. Factor 1.00 0,91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 Frt 6.856 0.969' 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said.Flow(prot) 17M 6085 .; 1583 3433 "4928 " -0 3433 3539 "1583 -3433 'Ml), 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 VW0 UnK Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 238 668 _''; . " 30 Travel Time (s) 4.1 9.6 11.4 6.3 Peak Hour Factor • 0,92 0.92 6:92 0,92 0.92 " 0.92 0.02 0.92 0.92 , 0,92 "0:92 0,92 Adj. Flow (vph) 352 1927 1041 333 908 232 758 658 405 395 855 207 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 352 1927 1041 333 1140 0 758 658 405 395 855 207 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Prot pm+ov Prot pt}ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 23 Permitted Phases' Free g ' - Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 7 5 2 2 3 Switch Phase ' Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum_ Split (s) . 14.0 31.0 ' %, 14.0. 34.0 14,0 34.0 40 . 14.6 31 0 Total Split (s) 35.0 56.0 0.0 18.0 39.0 0.0 35.0 48.0 18.0 28.0 41.0 76.0 Total Split(%) 23.39%, 37,3% ) 0.0% 12.0% 26.0%0.0%, 23,3% 32.0% 12.0% 78.7% 27.3%, 50.7% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) - 2.0 . , 2.0 2,0 2.0 ' : 2.0 2.0 2.6 ' 2.0 2s0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 4,0 , .:6.0 6.0 (_ 4A 6.0 -' 610 6.0 ' , 6,0 6(0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes -Yes:Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes !Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None C-Min ActEflctGreen(s) 29.0, %0 1150.0, "12.0 33.0 ` 29.6 42,9 60.9 .-21.1 350 70.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0,33 1.00 0.08 0.22 0.19 0.29 0.41 0.14 0.23 0.47 vlc Ratio.' 1,03 1.14 " 0.66 1.21 1.02') - 1.14 0.65- • '0,62 A.04 0.16 Control Delay 114.3 114.4 2.2 179.0 87.8 133.6 50.8 39.9 76.9 95.8 22.6 Queue Delay " 0.10 0.0 0.0 6,0 0,0 -, 6.0 010, 0.0 - 0.0, . 0 0 0:0 Total Delay 114.3 114.4 2.2 179.0 87.8 133.6 50.8 39.9 76.9 95.8 22.6 LOS' F F A' F F I' F D' D E f C Approach Delay 79.2 108.4 82.8 80.3 Approach LOS 7E + F F P Queue Length 50th (ft) -367 -802 0 -204 -422 -445 301 309 194 -472 63 Queue Length 95th (ft) #572 #895 0 #308 #520 ,' 4575 e 372 430 255 #607' 92 Internal Link Dist (ft) 158 482 588 290 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes Volumes Timings 2013 PM S+F (with SBR) -' -• z'r 4- h t /0- ti l 4/ Base Capacity (vph) 342 1695 1583 275 1114 664 1013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1,03 1.14 0.66 1.21 1.02 1.14 0.65 0.62 0.78 1.04 0.16 R Intersection Signal Delay: 85.6Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.6% ICU Level of Service G - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be 0 T.. .. A�� m1 � m2 03 F m4 35i3 41 s 35 s 39 s 3 05 t' m6 '�f m7 08 28' 48 s 18 s 1 IM56 s HDR, Inc. 2129/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM S+F (with EBL) WNW W IMMOM @T I B)? @L 1 R WBft @L� j 7�$RY BL SBT� 581 Lane Configurations R►j ttt 11, 11 to 1) TT rM TT r Volume (vph) , 324 1773 958 306 835 213 '697, 605 373 ' . 363- , 787 190, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190o mt Nrotectec Said. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Said, Flow (perm); Right Turn on Red Said. Flow (RTOR, Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (sl Detector Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (; Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode Act Eftct Green (s) Actuated q/C Ratio Total U.95U 0.950 3433 . 5085 1583 3433 0.950 0.950 40 40 238 562" 4.1 9.6 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 352 1927 1041 333 908 232 352 1927 1041 333 1140 0 Prot Free Prot 3 8 7 4; Free 3 8 7 4r 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 14(6 31.0 ,' 14.0 34.0' 26.0 56.0 0.0 18.0 48.0 0.0 TA:,'37.3% 0.0% .12.0% .32.0%' 0.0% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20 2.0 - 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 ` 4.0 6.'0 6.0 4.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes `Yes j Yes - Yes done Min None Min 18.7 50.0 150.0 12.0 43.3 0.12 0.33 1.00 0.08 0.29 0.82' 1.14" - 0,66 1,21 0.78 80.2 114.4 2.2 179.0 52.0 0,0 off 0.0 0.0. 0,0 80.2 114.4 2.2 179.0 52.0 0.950 3433 0.950 0.950 40 40 668'` 370 11.4 6.3 492 0.92 0.92 ` 0.92 , 0.92 "0.92 758 658 405 395 855 207 758 658 405 395 855 207 'rot pm+ov ,- Prot pm+off 1 6 7 5 2 3 6 2 6 7 5- 2 3 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 . 1 34.0 1 1 14.0 . 14.0 31 0 1'4.0 5.0 48.0 18.0 28.0 41.0 26.6 3% 32.0% 12.0% 18.7% ,273°10 17.3"/0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 2,0 2.0. 20 - 2.0 2 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Min None None C-Min None 29.0 ' 42.9 60.9 21,1 ' 35'i0 59.7 0.19 0.29 0.41 0.14 0.23 0.40 1.14 0.65 0,62 .0,82 , -1.04 0.33 133.6 50.8 39.9 76.9 95.8 31.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 " 0.0 133.6 50.8 39.9 76.9 95.8 31.0 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA Lanes Volumes Timings 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue 2013 PM S+F (with EBL) 4., t rI- an QCoup� �L*,Rl3T�EBR= VBf UyBT lVBR NBL Naiawm Ra�C BT lid Turn Bay Length (4), 100 Base Capacity(vph) 458 1695 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.77 1.14 215 235 235 220 225 1583 275 1453 664 1013 649 504 826 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.66 1.21 0.78 1.14 0.65 0.62 0.78 1.04 0.32 F.Yfnrten4lnn=,4ilmmaN N Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 150 1.21 elay: 79.2 Intersection LOS: E r Utilization 104.6% ICU Level of Service G Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be Queue shown is maximum after two cycles n_,•._ _._a nl n. I.-: ... —:4.. 11 :.... 4 T..vnn A.rnn„u m2 YT YYY a3 m4 355 41 s 26 s 48 s 05 t06 o7 'M' 08 28s I M48s' IRS 56 s HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2013 PM S+F (with EBL and SBR) --,* ~* 'r t 4\ T/0- `► 1 4/ Lane Conf Volume N Ideal Flow on Lane Detector Phase Switch Phase i Minimum Initial Minimum Split{ Total Split (s) 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 100 0 215 2 1 2 4.1 9.6 ).92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 352 1927 1041 333 908 352 1927 1041 333 1140 'rot .- Free. Prot 3 8 7 4 Free' 3 8 7 4 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 31.0 14.0 34.0 !6.0 56.0 0.0 18.0 48.0 1900 1900 1900 0 1 235 0 2 25 25 0.91 0.97 0.95 Yes 1900 1900 1900 220, 225 2 2 25 25, 0.97 0.95 0.88 11.4 6.3 ).92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 758 658 405 395 855 207 j 758 658 405 395 855 207 prof "; pm+ov, i Prot ,pt+off( 1 6 7 5 2 23 6 1 6 7 5 2 23 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 1 34.0 ' 14.0 " 114.0 . 31.0 15.0 48.0 18.0 28.0 41.0 67.0 31/6 '32.0% 12.0% 18.No 27.3% 44.7°l0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 ; -2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 20' Lost I ime Ad)ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) . , 60 6:0 06,0 6.0. 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0` 0 60 6;0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lad Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ,Yes Yes ` Yes Yes. Recall Mode None Min None Min None Min None None C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 18.7 60.0 150,0 , 12.0 ' , 43.3 " 29.0 42.9 60.9 21.1 35.0 59.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 1.00 0.08 0.29 0.19 0.29 0.41 0.14 0.23 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.82 1.14 .; 0,66 121 , 0.78 1.14 0.65 0,62, 0,82 1.04 0,1$ Control Delay 80.2 114.4 2.2 179.0 52.0 133.6 50.8 39.9 _ 76.9 95.8 26.9 Queue belay 00 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0.0 ' 0,0 OAL 0:0 Total Delay 80.2 114.4 2.2 179.0 52.0 133.6 50.8 39.9 76.9 95.8 26.9 LOS F F A F' D'i , F ."D' ' D E F.. Approach Delay 75.6 80.7 82.8 80.9 Approach LOS E F F F Queue Length 50th (ft) 174 -802 0 -204 369 -445 301 309 194 -472 66 Queue Length 95th (ft) 231 0895 0 #308 428 <" #575 372 430 255 #60,7 ' 99 Internal Link Dist (ft) 158 482 588 290 HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report Plaza Redevelopment TIA 3: University Drive & Texas Avenue Lanes Volumes Timings 2013 PM S+F (with EBL and SBR) 1583 275 1453 664 1013 649 504 826 1144 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ': 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.77 1.14 0,66 1.21 0.78 1.14 0.65 0.62 0.78 1.04 0.18 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 - Actuated Cycle Length: 150 150 v/c Ratio:1.21 104.6% ICU Level of Service G Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. y mt � m2 Y m3 F- m4 35's 41 s 26rsY 46 s m5 1'.: m6 fit' m7 "► m8 2&s15149s E 18s I VNIFEs HDR, Inc. 2/29/2012 Synchro 7 - Report TIA results: • Existing Level of Service (LOS) is "E" in am peak and "F" in pm peak with LOS "D" being acceptable • Total trip generation 8,802 vehicles per day (VPD) equivalent to a major collector operating at LOS "D" • TIA methodology reduced trips by 39% for people using transit, walking, bicycling and internal capture • After the reduction VPD = 5,412 the equivalent of a minor collector operating at LOS "F" • TIA analyzed turning movements every 15 minutes and the queues are maximums after two cycles. • The development would increase the right turn queue on Texas southbound to westbound University by more than 50% in the am peak • A dual right configuration in that location would reduce the queue mentioned above by more than half or 100% • Development would increase the left turn queue on University eastbound to Texas northbound by 70% in the pm peak • A dual left configuration in that location would reduce the queue mentioned above by almost half or 100%