HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 Venessa Garza 16PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Roadway Improvement Options
Intersection of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive
College Station, Texas
Prepared by
Transportation Engineering Analysts
McClure & Browne Engineering/Surveying, Inc.
July 2013
Transportation Engineering Analysts
Joseph D. Blaschke, D. Eng., P.E., President
TX Firm Registration No. F-126 • 1008 Woodcreek D rive, College Station, Texas 77845 •e-mail: jblaschke@verizon.net
979/693 -5 800 • Fa x: 979/693-5870
Mr. Donald E. Hannon, Jr., PE, PMP
Assistant Director
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
July 3, 2013
RE: Roadway Improvement Options, J11tersectio11 of Wellborn Road and Hol/emmt Drive
Project STl309
Dear Mr. Harmon:
On behalf of Transportation Engineering Analysts and McClure & Browne
Engineering/Surveying, Inc., I am pleased to submit the final report containing a discussion of
various roadway improvement options for the intersection of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive
and recominendations for implementation of those options . As indicated in the report, there are
numerous viable options for consideration. There is little doubt that raising the intersection to
become essentially level with the railroad crossing will improve the operational efficiency of t he
intersection and remove the "dip" that is a constant irritant to motorists. Also, widening both the
east and west sides of the intersection to a five-lane cross-section in conjunction with raising the
intersection "platfonn," will increase operational capacity and significantly improve traffic flow at
the intersection.
Thank you for providing Jeffery Robertson of McClure & Browne Engineering/Surveying,
Inc. and me the opportunity to assist you in this important study. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if you have any questions.
JDB/sb
cc: Casey Rhodes
Specializing in: Traffic Engineering Roadway Design Acciden t Analysis
Roadway Improvement Options
Intersection of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive
College Station, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. .
II. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ .
General Observations ................................................................................... ..
General Improvement Suggestions ............................................................... .
Options ......................................................................................................... .
Cost-Effectiveness Considerations ................................................................ .
Ill. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. .
APPENDIX A-FIGURES .................................................................................... ..
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Aerial V iew of Intersection ........................................................ .
Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 1 ...................... ..
Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 2 ...................... ..
Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 3 ...................... ..
Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 4 ...................... ..
Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 5 ...................... ..
Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 6 ....................... .
APPENDIX B -TABLES ..................................................................................... .
Table I. AM-Peak Turning Movement Counts ....................................... .
Table II. Noon-Peak Turning Movement Counts .................................... .
Table Ill. PM-Peak Turning Movement Counts ....................................... .
Table IV. Estimated Costs for Option Number 1 ..................................... ..
Table V. Estimated Costs for Option Number 2 ...................................... .
Table VI. Estimated Costs for Option Number 3 ..................................... ..
Table VII. Estimated Costs for Option Number 4 ...................................... .
Table VIII. Estimated Costs for Option Number 5 ...................................... .
Table IX. Estimated Costs for Option Number 6 ..................................... ..
Table X. Level-of-Service Crite ria for Signalized Intersections .............. ..
Table XI. Delay Savings Comparisons .................................................. .
APPENDIX C -SYNCHRO 8 RESULTS ............................................................. .
1
3
3
4
5
7
10
A
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
B
8-1
8-2
B-3
B-4
8-5
8-6
8-7
8-8
8-9
B-10
B-11
c
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of College Station, Texas requested the firm of Transportation Engineering
Analysts to perform an analysis of the existing operational conditions at the intersection of
Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive, an intersection of two arterial streets located
approximately 0.70 mile south of the campus of Texas A&M Un iversity. The purpose of the
analysis was to develop realistic options for improvements to the intersection that would result
in improved operational efficiency and increased operational capacity . While recogn izing that
increased operational efficiency typically results in reduction in crashes and cost savings
resulting from crash rate reduction, the cost benefits associated with crash rate reduction was
not included In the analysis.
The intersection is controlled with a traffic signal installation. The presence of a railroad
crossing on Holleman Drive west of the intersection ce rtainly affects traffic flow conditions at
the intersection . An aerial view of the intersection is shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A of this
report. The traffic signals are pre-empted by the active dev i ces at the ra i lroad crossing .
Because of the existing lane configurations on Holleman Drive and the high demand for left-
turns from Holleman Drive, the signals operate with split phasing on Holleman Drive
approaches and protective/permissive left-turn phasing for the Wellborn Road approaches.
The railroad tracks are elevated about 3.75 feet above the western edge of Wellborn
Road, which is located about 33 feet from the nearest rail. Hence, this rather abrupt roadway
alignment change along an 11.4 percent slope over the 33-foot distance causes motorists to
slow down when traveling between Wellborn Road and the railroad crossing . At the very start
of the project, elimination of the elevational difference appeared to be one of the primary
improvement options.
Currently, both Wellborn Road approaches to the intersection have two through lanes,
and right-turns are permitted from the outside through lanes . Both Wellborn Road approaches
1
have a separate left-turn lane with unlimited storage space due to the continuous two-way left-
turn lane that exists on Wellborn Road. The eastbound Holleman Drive approach has two
lanes. The inside lane allows left turns and through movements. The outside lane allows
through movements and right turns. The westbound Holleman Drive approach also has two
lanes, but only one westbound lane exists over the railroad crossing on the west side of the
intersection. The inside westbound approach lane allows left turns and through movements.
The outside approach lane is restricted to right turns only.
2
11. ANALYSIS
Turning movement counts were made at the intersection on April 10 and April 17, 2013.
These counts were made during the morning-, noon-and evening-peak periods. The results of
the counts are shown in Tables I, II, and Ill in Appendix B of this report. In general, traffic
volumes were highest during the evening-peak period, specifically during the 5:00 to 6:00 hour,
with 2,766 vehides entering the intersection during this time period. In comparison, 1,984
vehicles entered the intersection during the morning-peak hour (7:30 to 8:30 a.m.), and 2,020
vehicles entered the intersection during the noon-peak hour {12:30 to 1:30 p.m.). The
southbound Wellborn Road approach had the highest number of vehicles entering the
intersection with 41.5 percent of the total. A further breakdown of evening-peak volumes are
shown below:
Wellborn Northbound:
(790-28.6%)
Wellborn Southbound:
(1148-41.5%)
Holleman Eastbound:
(452 -16.3%)
Holleman Westbound:
(376-13.6%)
Left (107) -13.5%
Thru (613) -77.6%
Right (70) -8.9%
Left (122) -10.6%
Thru (934)-81.4%
Right (92) -8.0%
Left (134) -29.6%
Thru (235) -52.0%
Right (83) -18.4%
Left {68)-18.1%
Thru (239) -63.6%
Right {69) -18.3%
There were two surprising results from the turning movement counts. The high percent
of through movements on Holleman Drive approaches in both directions was unexpected. Also,
the number of left turns from eastbound Holleman Drive was higher than expected. However,
once the Penberthy Road Extension is constructed, the number of left-turning vehicles on that
approach likely will decrease substantially.
General Observations
The following were general observations of traffic flow conditions at the intersection:
3
~~
1. The intersection was operating below capacity during the morning-and noon-peak
periods. During the evening-peak period, congestion occurred, which was clearly
demonstrated by long vehicle queues forming on the eastbound Holleman Drive
approach.
2. Trains are frequent at the intersection . During the turning movement counts, two
trains arrived during the morning-peak period, three during the noon-peak period,
and two during the evening-peak period. However, the signal pre-emptions worked
flawlessly and traffic queues cleared relatively quickly when trains departed, with
the exception of the eastbound Holleman Drive approach during the evening-peak
period. Also, the trains did not occupy the crossing for a long period of time. Again,
the only backup of significance was the eastbound Holleman Drive approach during
the evening-peak period.
3. When trains were present, there was some vehicle queuing on the southbound
Wellborn Drive approach with vehicles waiting to turn right across the railroad
tracks. The queues blocked the outside southbound Wellborn Road travel lane.
Although sight distances are excellent, the presence of stopped veh icles in the
outside southbound travel lane with a "green" signal indication for the southbound
approach was somewhat disconcerting.
4. There was very little pedestrian traffic and _very littlfi bicycle traffic at the
intersection during all three counting periods. h. 6\A.) lJ-<A...t_. ~ ~
~,g;;li:zg;llEJl·-~cr-
5. There were few motorcycles and large trucks using the intersection.
~~~
b1ILL\~
f>l'l-O~~eJ . 6. No large trucks or buses attempted to cross the railroad tracks from Wellborn Road
during the six-hour counting period.
7. The presence of the "dip" east of crossing (and west of Wellborn Road) obviously is
an operational problem associated with this intersection.
General Improvement Suggestions
Based on the turning movement counts made at the intersection of Wellborn Road and
Holleman Drive, the following general suggestions relative to roadway improvements were
developed:
1. Elevate the intersection on the east, north, and south sides of intersection to
essentially match the elevation of the railroad to improve movements through the
4
intersection . W ithout this improvement, traffic flow at intersection will always be
disrupted.
2. Once the decision is made to elevate the i ntersection, additional improvement
options should be considered.
3. lntersectional capacity will be improved with the elevated "platform" because
vehicular delays will be reduced and more vehicles will be able to travel through the
intersection duri ng the peak periods, but more significant roadway capacity
improvements will be obtained by adding lanes to the Holleman Drive approaches.
4. The provision of separate left-turn and right-turn lanes will he lp improve
intersectional capacity; however, the degree of improvement depends on the
number of left-turns or right-turns at the intersection on those approaches being
considered for improvement. The greater the percentage of left-or right-turns, the
greater the improvement. The only significant left-turn movement (based on
percentage of the total on the approach) is from the eastbound Holleman Drive
approach.
5. Relative to the railroad grade crossing, any widening of the crossing will require new
active devices, which will cost about $225,000 or more. The actual cost associated
with the widening of the crossing structure is much less with only minimal additional
costs as the width of the crossing increases.
Options
After reviewing the existing conditions at the intersection of Wellborn Road and
Holleman Drive and considering the existing traffic volumes using the intersection, the
following six roadway improvement options were considered for more detailed analys i s.
1. Option 1-Raise the elevation of the east side of the intersection and keep existing
lane configurations. This is least costly overall improvement, assuming that the
intersection will be elevated. All other options assume -Option 1 is included.
Because of the d isruption to traffic associated with the construction associated with
elevating the intersection, construction of this option should not begin unti l
Penberthy Road is extended from George Bush Drive to Jones-Butler Road so
motorists west of the intersection will have the ability to travel northward toward
the Texas A&M Univers ity campus. Transitions to the elevated "platform" can be
accomplished with acceptable slopes without affecting adjacent property. New -traffic signals will be required . The railroad crossing and active signa ls at the
crossing do not have to be mod ified. The most difficult problem associated with the
project will be to schedule and organize construction of improvements. Providing
5
continual access to adjacent pr operty on the east side of the intersection will be
difficult to provide. Half of intersection will have to be closed while it is being raised .
Wellborn Road should remain open during construction, but only two lanes will be
available for vehicular use. Figure 2 illustrates this proposed improvement, with the
area shaded in grey illustrating the section of the two roadways that will be affected
by the improvement. As shown in Table IV, the estimated cost for this improvement
is $753,567.
2. Option 2 -Add a right-turn lane to southbound Wellborn Road. The number of
r ight turns is not excessive (8.0% of the total on the approach), so minima l
operational capacity increase will be experienced . The biggest advantage is
providing storage for right-turn i ng vehicles waiting for trains to clear crossing . One
potential issue is curb return radius. Additional cost for this option is minimal.
Figure 3 illustrates this proposed improvement, which i ncludes Opti on 1 as well. As
shown in Table V, the est i mated cost for this improvement is $805,305 .
3. Option 3 -Add a r i ght-turn lane to westbound Holleman Drive. Again , right turns
are not extremely excessive (18.3% of the total on the approach), but at a higher
percentage than found on the southbound Wellborn Road approach. Right turns on
the approach essen t ially equal left turns on the approach. The advantage associated
w ith this improvement is allowi ng the separation of through and l eft-turns on the
approach, movements which currently have to share one lane. Also , separating the
left-turn lane will allow more efficient operation during train crossings. Option 3 is
an operationa l improvement; Opt ion 2 is more of a safety improvement. Figure 4
i ll ustrates this proposed improvement, which includes Option 1 as wel l. As shown in
Table VI, the est i mated cost for this improvement is $847,662.
4. Option 4 -Add a right-turn lane on northbound Wellborn Road. Again, only
minimal operational improvement would be expected with th is option because
there is a small percent of right-turns on the approach (8 .9% of the approach
volume). Howeve r, the separate right -turn lane will remove right-turning vehicles
from the through lanes so increased operational efficiency will result. Figure 5
illustrates this proposed improvement, which includes Option 1 as well. As shown in
Table VII, the estima t ed cost for this improvement is $774,235.
5. Option 5 -Widen both sides of Holleman Drive to five lanes. Currently, the east
side of the intersection is wider than the west side . The east side has four lanes and
the west side has three lanes. Widening the west side to five lanes would match the
east side, assuming the additional right-turn lane is added on the westbound
Holleman Drive app r oach. The resulting cross-section would provi de a separate
left-turn lane, a separate through lane, and a through/right-turn lane on both
approaches. This cross-section would permit the traffic signals to operate with a
lead i ng left-turn phase on the Holleman Drive approaches and elim i nate the current
6
split phasing operation. Two through lanes would exist on the "opposite" sides of
the intersection allowing two through lanes to operate on both approaches . Figure
6 illustrates this proposed improvement, which includes Option 1 as well. As shown
in Table VIII, the estimated cost for this improvement is $1,413,021 . For additional
analytical purposes later in this report, this option is referred to as Option SA.
Option SB has the same cross-section and same cost, but the lane assignments
change to a left-turn/through lane, a separate through lane, and a separate right-
turn lane on both approaches. Option SB eliminates the opportunity for eliminating
the split phase operation so its operational effectiveness is suspect.
6. Option 6 -Widen both sides of Holleman Drive to six lanes. Widening the west
side of the intersection to six lanes would be the maximum ever needed over the
railroad crossing. The east side of the intersection logically would be widened to
match the west side. This resulting cross-sections would provide a separate right-
turn lane, two through lanes, a left-turn lane, and two lanes flowing in the opposite
direction for both approaches. The advantage of the ultimate widening would be
maximum operational efficiency and minimal signal green times needed to clear
both approaches. Additional right-of-way will be required. However, these
maximum operational improvements would result with one primary problem. It
would be difficult to transition the widened roadway back to existing cross -sections,
especially on the west side of the intersection. Figure 7 illustrates this proposed
improvement, which includes Option 1 as well. As shown in Table IX, the estimated
cost for this improvement is $1,569,909.
Cost-Effectiveness Considerations
After considering these six options, the next logical step is to provide some type of cost-
effectiveness analysis for the options . In other words, which options will provide the best
economic return on the investment (or cost of construction)? HOR Engineering, Inc. was
requested to perform a traffic flow analysis associated with each improvement using SYNCHRO
8 software. The software performs a traffic flow efficiency analysis determining average delay
per vehicle using an intersection over a specified period of time. The software also identifies a
level-of-service for the time frame in which the analysis is conducted. (The results of the
SYNCH RO 8 analysis are included in Appendix C of this report.)
The operational level-of-service (LOS) is defined by traffic engineers as a traffic flow
condition ranging from free flow (LOS A} to fully congested conditions (LOS F), based on vehicle
delay. As traffic flow conditions become "worse," the values of LOS change from A to B to C
7
and so on to F. Table X is a chart from the Highway Capacity Manual that provides a
comparison of LOS levels A through F. As indicated in the chart, an intersection can have a LOS
C or D within a range of average vehicle delay values. Hence, it is possible to have an
operational improvement at an intersection (a reduction in delay time) yet remain in the same
LOS . The SYNCHRO 8 analysis conducted for the various options resulted in reduced delay
times but not improved LOS level. Therefore, some options proved to be worthy of
consideration because vehicular delays were reduced even though the LOS level did not
improve.
As shown in Table XI, all of the six options discussed above were shown to provide
improved operations, as expected. Some options were more effective than others. The delay
values shown in Table XI represent the average delay PER VEHICLE entering the intersection
during the evening-peak period, which was the time of day having the greatest volume of
traffic. The annual delay savings shown in the table represents the savings associated with
reduced delay for a year, only for those vehicles using the intersection during the weekday
evening peak periods. Obviously, additional delay savings will be recognized during other time
periods when traffic flow is significant, but for the purposes of making compar isons, the delay
savings were associated only for weekday evening-peak periods . Hence, the "years to payoff''
actually would be shorter in reality. The values shown in the "years to payoff' columns are for
comparative purposes only.
The results of the analysis suggest that simply elevating the intersection has an
operational improvement but a very long payoff period . The overall operational improvement
associated with the construction of the platform alone (Option 1) does not appear to be very
cost -effective if additional improvements are not made as well. Granted, there are other
advantages associated with elevating the intersection which will be viewed by the motoring
public, including a slight delay savings overall, but primarily making the crossing of the railroad
less "jolting" and more comfortable. There is a benefit associated with making the motoring
public happier, although it is difficult to place a "cost saving" on this benefit. Review of the
other options, which all include Option 1 as well, show greater cost benefits. The most
8
significant cost benefits are associated with the w idening projects, even though Options 2 and 3
provide minimal improvements. Option SA (with the separate left turns on both approaches)
obviously is better than Option SB (with the sep arate right turns on both approaches). Options
S and 6 are the only options that result in reduction in the LOS, which is due to the increased
capacity associated with the widening proposals.
In essence, all Options provide operat ional improvements and the costs associated with
any Option eventually would be paid back in time . The most effective Options are those which
cost the most because they have the most significant delay savings .
9
Ill. CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the conduct of this operational improvement study of the Intersection of
Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive, the following conclusions are made.
1. As a minimum, constructing the elevated intersectional platform and approaches
would be suggested, but constructed only after the Penberthy Road extension is
completed . This improvement would require a new traffic signal installation but no
roadway widening would occur and the railroad crossing would not be altered. This
option, although providing improved traffic flow conditions and more comfortable
negotiation of the crossing, has limited cost-effectiveness. Additional improvements
would be recommended in conjunction with the construction of the platform to
provide a greater benefit to the cost of construction.
2. Adding right-turn lanes on southbound Wellborn and westbound Holleman would be
recommended to provide additional operational capacity and safety. Adding a right-
turn lane on northbound Wellborn would provide only minimal operational
improvement.
3. Making significant intersectional operational improvements will require widening
both the east and west sides of the intersection and the railroad crossing. The
overall cost-effectiveness of the widening increases as additional lanes are added on
the approach. However, as the widening is inc reased, the length of the transition
back to normal cross-sections increases as we l l, especially on the west side of the
intersection. Acquiring the additional right -of-way to incorporate the transitions
may become difficult and the resulting transitions may be shorter than desired as a
consequence . Although the ultimate widening to six lanes provides the greatest
return on the investment, widening Holleman Drive to five lanes on both sides of the
intersection may be the most beneficial, considering overall cost and the difficulty in
transitioning back to existing cross-sections. The resulting east side of the
intersection would have two eastbound lanes, and three westbound lanes consisting
of a left-turn lane, one through lane, and through/right-turn lane . (This cross-
section is the existing cross-section with one additional lane.) The west side of the
intersection would look like the east side with two westbound lanes, and three
eastbound lanes consisting of a left-turn lane, one through lane, and a
through/right-turn lane.
4. Providing a separate right-turn lane for southbound Wellborn Road does not appear
to be a significant operational improvement, but it is a safety improvement that
should be considered for implementation .
10
Figure 1. Aerial View of Intersection
A-1
\ ~
FIGURE 2
...... ___ ....
\
\ '!!" v I
t I ~{ .. ·l(
HOLLEMAN .DRIVE/WELLBORN ROAD
OPTION #1
SCALE : Hor: 1 • • 50'
o 2~· ~a· 100· t;;;;-ol . I
\
\
I
I
\
\
(
/
/
Hollemon Drive & Wellborn Rood Option # 1
1. El evate intersection . Cross-section remains the same.
A-2
' '
/
"'
/
I I \
l I \ ~ 'I
l/1
I \ .f I
I
I
I •
I
I I
I / ...... ..,
I I
I I r :1,,
FIGURE 3
HOLLEMAN .DRIVE/WELLBORN ROA.D
OPTION #2
SCALE: Hor: 1 • • 50'
0 25' Ml' 100' t;;;;;-o! I I
"'
\
~
:
0 ;;
I
I
I
f
\
·1:£3
\
I I -
I I
I I
I I
l
Holl eman Drive & We ll born Rood Option #2
1. Elevate inte~ection .
2, Add right-turn lan e on southbound Wellborn Road ,
A-3
O' ,, .,,
/
I
" I )
FIGURE 4
\ "•, I \· t I . '\ ~/ I~ \ ""'~
_ __Li:\
1 .,_
\
I
I
'".b \
/ ./
I
/
0 ;:;
I
I
I
I
\
I
f
I
(
I
\
I
I
I
I
HOLLEMAN DRIVE/WELLBORN ROAD
OPTION #3
SCA LE: Hor: 1 • • 50• Hollemon Drive & Wellborn Rood Option #3
o 25' so· 100• 1. Elevate inler!Seclion. to;;-""' 1 I 2, Add right -turn lone to westbound Hollemon Drive ,
A-4
·~
/1
/
/
...-,,..._
/
"-.. / '-I r / : / I \ t. I I /
/ . I \ I ,.
0 I I ..,, ;; I /
/ I \ I
I I I
I I
FIGURE 5
HOLLEMAN DRIVE/WELLBORN ROAD
OPTION #4
SCALE: Hor: 1" • 50'
Holleman Drive & Wellborn Road Option #·4
1 . Elevate intersection .
0 25 ' ~· 100' t;;;;-ol I I 2 . Md right -turn lone to northbound Wellborn Rood .
A-5
"' I(
I
' '·
-·---
' ~ 0. \ :I I
I ~
I
I jf ':>'! ..
j
,.
I • • \ Jl '.I I 1 ,, '
FIGURE 6
HOLLEMAN DRIVE/WELLBORN ROAD
OPTION #5
SCALE: Hor. 1" -50'
O 2 S' ~· 100' to;;-. I
Holleman Drive & We ll born Road Option 65
1. Elevate Intersecti on .
2. Widen eastboun d ond westbo un d Holl emon Drive to five lanes , resu lting in
left-t urn lane, th rough Iona, and through/right t urn lone on eoe h
approa ch with two outbou nd lane s on both a pproa ches .
A-6
I
·1
J
I
(
I
FIGURE 7
HOLLEMAN DRIVE/WELLBORN ROAD
OPTION #6
SCALE : Hor: 1" -100'
O SO' 100' 200' t;;m . I
Hollemon Drive & Wellborn Rood Option 66
1. Elevate intersection.
2. Widen eo9lbound and westbound Ho llemon Drive to six lanes, resulting in
left-tum lane. two throu9h lanes, end right-tur n lone on each approach
with tw o outbound lanes on both approaches.
A-7
···········--··-···--
V')
w ....
'° ~
'° x
0 z w
0..
0..
<t
m
TABLE I. AM-PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
April 10, 2013
·---
Wellborn NB Wellborn SB Holleman EB Holleman WB
Start
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total
7:00 9 113 4 7 38 2 14 11 11 9 10 8 236
7:15 5 209 5 4 34 3 14 15 7 5 8 18 327
7:30 12 350 16 2 33 3 38 28 11 4 17 18 532
7:45 23 362 24 9 59 1 35 28 12 12 16 18 599
8:00 12 263 18 2 49 6 11 25 16 15 16 14 447
8:15 11 262 12 3 41 2 24 18 8 8 7 10 406
8:30 17 275 20 6 43 4 30 28 5 5 21 25 479
8:45 12 305 20 6 42 14 34 25 6 4 16 32 516
Peak
Hour 58 1237 70 16 182 120 108 99 47 39 56 60 1984
B-1
TABLE II. NOON-PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS April 10, 2013 ~,,._"·''~--~ ~ t ' ~.w.--. -·· ~ ·-~ .. -·-· ~ . Wellborn NB Wellborn SB Holleman EB Holleman WB Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 11 :30 17 96 10 16 130 10 14 43 18 11 27 11 403 11 :45 19 129 13 19 120 5 16 41 14 6 26 13 421 12:00 Noon 20 153 11 8 106 7 29 37 8 6 36 23 444 12:15 11 167 8 29 108 13 25 39 21 7 33 13 474 12:30 18 160 15 29 151 19 17 38 20 9 44 22 542 12:45 25 15'4 13 25 143 11 29 38 19 9 45 16 527 1:00 21 153 10 17 114 12 21 39 16 13 39 12 467 1 :15 31 174 16 13 96 12. 26 27 11 19 33 26 484 ·,* ,, ' ' Peak Hour 95 641 54 84 504 54 93 142 66, 50 161 76' 2020 8-2
TABLE Ill. PM-PEAK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
April 17, 2013
-··.' ··------, ... ,. ···~
Wellborn NB Wellborn SB Holleman EB Holleman WB
Start
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total
4:00 17 83 6 31 148 6 18 39 14 11 35 6 414
4:15 21 100 8 19 167 22 23 48 24 10 63 7 512
4:30 18 93 11 20 173 22 24 45 26 12 43 9 496
4:45 28 105 10 11 159 30 13 46 20 12 57 20 511
5:00 19 135 16 24 212 16 31 44 21 8 39 20 585
5:15 33 189 11 39 258 20 35 56 23 23 71 12 770
5:30 24 137 24 33 255 22 43 71 21 18 59 11 718
5:45 31 152 19 26 209 34 25 64 18 19 70 26 693
-
Peak
Hour 107 613 70 122 934 92 134 235 83 68 239 69 2766
8-3
----------·····-··-·· .. -----------
TABLE IV
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Holleman and Wellborn Option# I
MBESI PROJ #: 1063-0031
June 24, 2013
11.m# I Description Unit Quantity UnitPric" Total
Site Preparation
I Mobilization (includes cOJ1str. Staking) .L.S. 1.0 $25 ,000.00 $25,000.00 --
2 Traffic Control Plan L.S. 1.0 S25 000 .00 525,000.00
3 Removal and Disoosal of Existf ng Asohalt Pa\'ement and Ba se S.Y. J ,675 57 .00 525,725 .00
4 Removal and Df<nnsal of E.xistin& Concrete Pa,·eme!'.t ________ S.Y. 89 SIO.OO $890 .00
5 Removal and Disoosal of Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter L.P. 1,035 S4 .00 S4,140.00
_L R~~! ofExist imz Stri Eing L.S . l S6,500.00 S6 ,500 .00
7 TrafficSio-n•ls L.S . l 5200,000.00 S200,000 .00
8 Work Zone Striping L.S . 1 Sli.000.00 $17 ,000 .00
9 Work Zone Strip ing Removal L.S. 1 $2,500.00 52,500.00
Si te Preparation Subtotal $306,755
Paving Construction
JO Earthwork (approx 2500 CY Embankment) L.S . I $45,000 .00 545,000.00
JI 8" Stabilized Submde S.Y. 3,951 S6 .J7 $2 4,377.67
12 s• Crushed Limestone Ba se S.Y. 2,998 Sl5.00 $44 ,970 .0 0 -13 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 1,035 $12 .00 $12,420 .00
14 One Course Surface Treatment Seal Coat (OCST) S.Y. 2,998 $3 .00 SS,994 .00
15 2" HMAC Surfac.e Course, Ty C (ind uding prime coat, full width) S.Y. 2,9 98 Sl0.00 $29,980.00
16 6" HMAC Swfacc Course Ty B (including prime coat) S.Y. 2 998 S28 .00 S83 944 .00
17 6" Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y. 400 $55 .00 S22,000.00
l8 4" Concrete Sid ewalk S.F. 750 $4 .00 $3,000.00 ··-
19 Sidewalk Ram~ -·-· EA 3 $75 0.00 S2,250.00
20 !Pavement Markin~ & Si.,n•<>e ! L .S. l $7,500.00 $7,500.00
Paving Subtota l 5284 ,436
Erosion Control Construction
2l Ero si on Control Plan & Sedimenta tion Control ( oer Item 106) L.S. 1 $7 500.00 $7,500 .00
22 Fumishin l! and Placement ofTon<n il (4 ') S.Y. 3,200.00 so .so Sl,600.00
23 Silt Fence L.F. 75 0 S3.50 $2 625 .00
24 Grass Seed ing (includes watering) S.Y. 3,200 Sl.50 $4,800.00
Erosion Control Subtotal $16,525
Total Construction Cost S607,716
Englneeri11g/Surveyi11g (12%) S72,926
------------------· _____________ G_e_ote_~~-I._e_st_in~g~(~2_o/c~o)_,._ __ S_1_2~,1_5_4
Contingency (Ht%) S60,772
Total Project Cost S7S3,567
B-4
-
TABLE V
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Holleman and Wellborn Option #2
MBESI.PROJ #: 1063-0031
June 24, 2013
Item# I Description Uni1 Quantity Unit Price
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
22
23
~4
Sile Preparation
Mobilization (includes constr. Staking) L.S. 1,0 $25 000 .00 ·-Traffic Control Plan L.S. l.O S25,000 .00
Removal and Disoosal ofExistin2 Asnhalt Pavement and Base S.Y. 3,6 75 S7 .00
Removal and Disoosal ofExistim! Concrete Pavement S.Y. 89 SI 0.00
Remo\11J and _DisQ2sal of Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter . L.F. l ,035 $4 .00
Remova l of Existing Strioina L.S . l $6 500 . .00
Traffic Si<mals L.S. 1 $200,000 .00
Work Zone Stri~ing L.S. J Sl7,000.00
Work Zone St.rioiM.Removal L.S . I $2,500.00
Relocate Existin2 Teieohone Line L.S. 1 SIS,000 .QO
Site Preparation Sublotalj
Paving Construction
Earthwork (annrox 2500 CY Emoonkment) L.S. 1 $45,000.00
8" Stabilized S~bgrade S.Y. 4,351 $6 .17
s• Cmshed Limestone Base S.Y. 3 209 $15 .00
Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 1,055 512 .00
One Course Surface Treatment Seal Coat ~OCST2
OM-0
S.Y 3,209 $3 .00
2" HMAC Surface Course, Tv C (i ncludimz orime coat, full \\id th) S.Y. 3,209 SI0.00
6" HMAC Stuface Course, Tv B (includine: nrime coat) S.Y. 3 609 S28 .00
6" Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y. 400 S55 .00
4 • Concrete Sidewalk S.F. 750 S4 .00
Sidewalk Ramps EA 3 $750 .00
Pavement Markings & Siima2e IS I SS,500 .00
Pa,~ng Subtotal
Erosion Control Construction
Erosion Control Plan & Sedimentation Control (oer Item 106) L.S. I S7,5 00.00
Furnishin" and Placemen! ofToD50il <4 ") S.Y. 3,200.00 S0.50
Silt Fence L.F. 750 S3.50 -Grass Seedin2 <includes \\alering) S.Y. 3 200 SI.Sci
Erosion Control Subtotal
___________________________ T_o_t_a_l C_onstruction Cost
Engineering/Surveying (12%)
Geotecb Testing (2%)
Contingency (10%)
Total Project Cost
-
Total
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25 ,725 .00
$890.00
S4 ,l40.00
S6,SOO .OO
S200,000 .00
$17,000.00
$2 ,500 .00
Sl5,000 .00
$321,755
S45,000 .00
526,845 .67
$48,135.00
512,660 .00
$9,627 .00
$32,090 .00
SlOl,052 .00
S22,000 .00
$3,000 .00
$2,250.00
SS,500.00
S311,160
S7,500 .00
Sl ,600.00
S2,625 .00
S4,800 .00
$16,525
S649,440
S77,933
S12,989
S64,944
S805,305
B-5
TABLE VI
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Holleman and Wellborn Option #3
MBESl PROJ #: 1063-0031
June 24, 2013
1tem # I Dtscription Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
Site Preparation
l Mobilization (ineludes constr. Staking) L.S . -LO $25,000 .00 S2S,000.00
2 Troffic C-Ontrol Plan L.S. LO $25,000.00 S25 ,000 .00
3 Removal and Disposal of Existing Asphalt Pavement nnd Ba..<e S.Y. 3,675 SS .00 S29 400 .00
4 Remo\•al and Disnosal of.Ex isting Concrete Pavement S.Y. 89 1 $5 .00 $445.00
5 Remo\'81 and Disposal of Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 1,035 S4 .00 S4,140.00-
6 Renxwal of Existing ~ing L.S. I $2,500 .00 $2,500.00
7 Traffic Sie:nals LS. I S200 000 .00 S200,000.00
8 Work Zone Strioimz L.S . I $6,750.00 $6,750.00
9 Work Zone Strioing Removal L.S . 1 S2,500.00 $2 ,500 .00
10 Rel?Cate Existing TeleEhone Line L.S . I Sl0,000.00 SI0,000.QQ.
11 Relocate Existin£ Overhead Eke. Line L.S. I $50,000.00 s5o,ooo.oo
12 Retaining Wall L.F. 125 Sl50.00 SI8,750 .00
Site Preparation Subtotal $374,485
l'aving Construction
13 Earthwork (aporox 2500 C..Y Embankment) L.S. I l $45,000.00 $45 ,000 .00
14 8" Stabilized Subl!Jude S.Y. 4,272 S6 .17 $26,358.24 ·-15 8" Crushed Limestone Base S.Y. 3,588 Sl5.00 $53,820.00
16 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 1,055 Sl2.00 Sl2,660.00
17 One Course Surface Treatment Seal Coat (OCST} S.Y. .... 3,324 S2 .50 S8,310 .00
___!L 2" .l-L\iAC Surface Course, T\' C (including prime coat, full \\idth) S.Y. 3,324 SS .OS $26 ,758 .20
19 6" HMAC Surface Co!ITTe Tv B (including prime coat) S.Y. 3 324 1 520.70 $68,806 .80
20 6" Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y. 400 S55 .00 $22,000 .00
21 4" Concrete Sidewalk S.F. 750 $4 .00 $3,000.00
22 Sidewalk Ramps EA 3 $750 .00 S2,250 .00
23 Pavement Mark ings & SlgnaJ1.e L.S . I SS 000 .00 $8,000.00
24 Retaining Wall L.F. 125 Sl25.00 $15,625 .00
Paving Subtotal $292,588
Erosion Control Construction
25 Erosion Control Plan & Sedimentation Control (per Item 106) L .S. l $7,500.00 $7 500 .00
26 FurnishinJI. and Placement of Topsoil (4') S.Y. 3,200.00 S0.50 Sl,600.00
27 Silt Feawe L.F. 750 S3 .50 S2,625 .00
28 Grass Seeding (includes watering) S.Y. 3,200 Sl.50 $4 ,800.00
Erosion Control Subtotal $16 ,525
Total Construction Cost $683,598
Engineering/Sun·c}ing (1_2_'X_o'--<) ___ S_8_2~,0_3_2
Geotech Testing (2%) Sl3,672
Confjngency (10%) S68,360
Total Project Costj S847,662
B-6
1tem# I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7 --· 8
9
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
TABLE Vll
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTJON COSTS
Holleman and Wellborn Option #4
MBESI PROJ #: J 063-003 l
June 24 , 2013
De.<cription Uni.I Quantity Unit Price
Site PrepRration
Mobilization (includes constr. Staking) LS. 1.0 $25,000.00 -
Traflic Control Pion L.S. 1.0 S25 ,000.00
Removal and Disoosal ofExistin2 Asphalt Pa\'ement and ,!3ase S.Y. 3,675 S7.00
Removal and Disoosal of Existino: Concrete PnYeme.nt S.Y. 149 S!0.00
Removal and Oicnnsal ofExisti no. Concrete Curb and Gut~~_r L.F. 1,035 $4.00
Removal of Existing Striping LS. 1 $6,500 .00
Traffi c Siroials L.S. J S200,000.00
Work Zone Siricina L.S. I I $17,000.00
Work Zone Striving Removal L.S. J S2,500 .00
Relocate Ex:istitU! 01·e.rhead Elec trical L.S . 1 $15,000 .00
Site Preparation Subtotal
Paving Construction
Earthwork (anorox 2500 C Y Embankment) L.S. J $45,0 00.00
g• Stabilized Sublmlde S.Y. 4,135 S6 .17
s• Crushed Limestone Base S.Y. 3,1 85 $15 .00
Coocre1e Curb and Outler L.F. 1,055 $12 .00
One Course Surface Treatment Seal Coat (OCSTl S.Y. 3,185 $3.00 ...
2" HMAC Surface Course, Tv C (including orirne coat full width) S.Y. 3,185 SI0.00
6" HMAC Surface Course , Tv B lincludine nrime coat) S_Y, 3 185 528 .00
6" Reinforced Concrete PaYement S.Y. 400 $55.00
4 • Concrete Sid ewalk S.F. 1,555 S4 .00
Sidewalk Ramps EA 3 $750 .00
Pavement Markings & SigJJage L.S. I $8 500 .00
Paving Subtotal
Erosion Control Construction
Erosion Control Plan & Sedimentation Control (oer Item I 061 L.S . LT $7 ,500.00
Furnishine and Placemen! of Toosoil 14•1 SY 3,200 .00 1 S0.50
Sill Fence L.F. 750 1 S3 .50
Total
$25,000.00
S25 ,000.00
$25,725 .00
SJ 490.00
S4 ,140.00
$6,500.00
$200,000. 00
$17,0 00.00
$2 ,500 .00
SIS 000 .00
$307,355
S45-'-000 .00
$25,512.95
$47,775.00
_$12,660.00
S9 555.00
531,850.00
$89 180 .00
$22,000.00
$6,220.00
52,250 .00
$8 ,5 0-0 .00
$300,503
$7 500.00
Sl.,600 .00
$2 ,625 .00
15 Grass Seeding (inchtdes waterin g) S.Y. 3 200 1 SJ.50 $4,800.00
Erosion Control Sub:otal $16,525
Totnl Construction Cost S624,38J
_____________________________ E_n_,g,__in_e_e_ri_n_,,g/_S_u_rv_e_,,)_iu_,g,__(,_1_2 _%~)+---.. ~?~,926
Geoted1 Te.sting (2%) Sll,488
Contiogeucy (10%) S62,438
Total Project Cost ! S774,235
B-7
TABLE VIII
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Holleman and Wellborn Option #5
MBESI PROJ #: I 063-0031
June 24 , 2013
Item # l Description Unit Quantity Unit Price
Site Preparation
I Mobilizat ion (includes constr. Staking) L.S. 1.0 S37,500.0 0
2 Traffic Control Plan L.S . LO $35 000.00 --3 Removal and Disoo5al of Existine: Asohalt Pavement and Base S.Y. 3,675 S7 .00
4 Remornl and Disnosal of Existing Concrete Pavement S.Y. 413 S I0.00
5 Removal and Dispasat of Existing Concrete Curb and Gut1er L.F. 1,035 S4.00
6 Removal of Existing Stri )ng -· L.S. I $7,500.00
7 Traffic Signals L.S . I S200 000 .00 ·-·-··· 8 Work Zone Stripin£ L.S. I s20;000.oo
9 Wo!!c Zone Striping Removal L.S . j l $3,500.00 -·· 10 Rail C1ossin2 Widenine: L.F. 30 Sl,500.00
11 Rail Sicnml Re location L.S . I $225 000.00
12 Relocate 0\uhead Elec . Line (along north si de of Holleman Dri\·e) L.S. I $75,000.00
13 Relocate Telephone Line (alon£ Hollman Drive near 11.as st ation) L.S. I SIO 000.00
14 Retainin£ Wall L .F. 125 $150.00
15 ROW Aco ui sition L.S . 1 $7 ,500 .00
Site Preparation Subtot al I
Paving Construction
16 Earthwork (approx 3000 CY Embankmenl) L S. 1 $50 000.00 ···-· 17 8" Stabilized Subgnide S.Y. 5,164 $6.17
18 8"' Crushed Limestone Base S.Y. 4,352 Sl5.00 ·-19 Concrete Curb and Gutter -· L.F. 1,582 $12 .00 .
20 One Course Surface Treatment Seal Coal {OCST} S.Y. 4,352 $3.00
21 2" HMAC Surface Cow;e Tv C (i ncludin11. Prim<! coat full \\i dtb) S.Y. 4,352 SI 0.00
22 6" HMAC Surface CoW"Se, Tv B (i ncludinl!. orime._c.oat) S.Y. 4 352 S28 .00
23 6" Reinforc.ed Concrete Pavement S.Y. 400 S55.00
24 4• Concrete Sidewalk S"F. 3,467 S4.00
25 Sidewalk Ramps EA 3 $75 0.00
26 Pa\·ement Markings & Signage L.S. I $9,000.00
Paving Sub!Ota l
Erosion Control Construction
27 Erosion Con trol Plan & Sed.imentation Control <oer Ifem I 06 l L.S. I S15,00D.OO
28 Furnishine.arid Placement ofToosoil (4 "} S.Y. 4,000 .00 S0 .50
29 Silt Fence L.F . 1,750 $3.50
30 Grass Seed ing (includes waterin2) S.Y. 4,000 Sl.50
Erosion Control Subto tal I
Total Construe.lion Cost
Engineering!Sun·e)ing (12 % )
Geotech Tuting (2%)
Contingency (10%)
Total Project Cost!
Total
$37,500 .00
$35,000.00
S25,725.00
$4,130.00
$4,140.00
$7 500.00
S200,000 .00
$20,000 .00
$3 500.00
S45,0 00.00
$225,000.00
$75,000.00
Sl 0,000.00
$18,750.00
$7 500.0 0
$718 ,745
S5 0,000 .QO
S31,861.19
$65,276_67
SJS,984 .00
$13,055 .33
$43,517.78.
Sl21 849 .78
$22 ,000 .00
SB,868.00
$2.250.00
$9 ,000.00
539 1,663
SI5.ooo.oo
$2,000.00
$6,125.00
s6.ooo.oo
$29 ,125
Sl,139,533
$136,744
$22,791
S113,953
Sl,413,021
B·B
TABLE IX
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Holleman and Wellborn Option #6
MBESIPROJ#: 1063 -0031
June24, 2013
Item# I Unit Quantity Unit Price I Total
Site Prepa.ratiou
1 M.obiliuition (includes constr. Staking) L.S. 1.0 S40,000 .00 $40,000 .00
2 Traflic Control Plan L.S. 1.0 $35,000.00 $35 ,00 0.00
3 Removal and Disi>osal of Existing Asphalt Pavement and. Base S.Y. 3,675 $7 .00 $25,725 .00
4 Removal and Dis~sal of Existing Concrete Pa\'ement S.Y. 413 S!0.00 S4,t30.00
5 Removal and. DisPOsal of.Existing Concrete Curb and Gu1ter L.F. I 570 S4 .00 S6,280 .00
6 Removal ofExistirw. Strioin2 L.S. I $7,500.00 $7 500 .00 -7 Traffic Signals L.S . I S200,000 .00 S200,000.00
8 Work Zone StriP.ing --L.S. 1 $20,000 .00 $20,000 .00
9 Work Zone Strioine: Removal L.S. I $3 ,500 .0 0 $3 ,5 00 .00
10 Rail Crossin2 Wid.~. L.F. 45 SI 500.00 '$67,500.00
11 Rail Sign al Relocation L.S . I $225 ,000.0 0 $225,000.00
12 Relocate Overhead Elec. Line (along 11orth side of Holleman Dri\•e) L.S. I $75,000.00 S75 ,000 .00 ---13 Relocate Te lephone Line (along Hollman Drive near gas station) L.S . I SJ0,000.00 S!0,000.00
14 Relocate Telephone Line (:don!! SW Hollman Dri.,·e near apartments) L.S. l S20 000 .00 $20 000.00
15 Relocate Existine: Water Line (near storage buildin1ts) L.F. 350 $80 .00 $28,000.00
16 Rel aining\Vall ... L.F. 125 $150 .00 $18,750 .00 ·-17 ROW Acauisition L.S. I SIS,000 .00 1 Sl5,000 .00
Sue Preparation Subtotal I $801 ,3 85
Paving Construction
18 Earthwork (approx 3000 CY Embankment) L.S. l $65,00 0.00 S65 000 .00
19 8" Stabilized Subgrade S.Y. 5,164 S6 .17 S3 l,861. I 9
20 8" Crushed Limestone Base S.Y. 4,454 SIS .00 $66,815 .00
21 Conc.rete Curb a.nd Guuer L.F. 2,2 23 S l 2.00 S26,676 .00
22 One Co\ITTe Surface Treatment Seal Coat (OCST) S.Y. 4,454 $3 .00 SJ3,363 .00
23 2" HMAC Surface Course, Tv C (including prime coat, full 1>idth) S.Y. 4,454 Sl0.00 $44,543 .33
24 6" HMAC Surface Course, Tv B (includi ng Prime coal) S.Y. 4,454 S28 .00 $124 721.33
25 6' Reinforced Concrete Pa\·ement S.Y. 400 $55 .00 $22,000 .00
26 4' Concrete Sidewalk S.F. S,579 54 .00 S..22,316 .00
27 Sidewalk Ramps EA 5 $750.00 $3,750 .00
28 Pavement Markin~ & SiMage L.S . I $12000.0 0 Sl2,000.00
Paving Subtota l S433 046
Erosion Control Construction
29 Erosion Control Plan & Sedimentat ion Control (ner Item I 06) L.S. 1 $17 ,500.00 SJ7,SOO .OO
30 Furnishing and Placement of Topsoil (4") s.Y. 4,000 .00 $050 $2 ,000.00
31 Slit Fence L .F. 1,750 $3 .50 $6,125.00
32 Grass Seeding (includes watering) S.Y. 4,000 SI.SO $6 000 .00
Erosion Control Subtotal $31,625
Total Construction Cost! Sl,266,056
Englneeriog/Surve~~i_n.""g~(_l 2_"1c_o"") c----S_l 5_1_,_,9._2_7
Geotech Testing (2%) S25,321
Contingency (10%) 5126,606
Total Project Cost Sl,569 909
B-9
TABLE X. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Control Delay per Vehicle
Level of Service (SecNeh)
A ~10
8 >10-20
c >20-35
D >35-55
E >55-80
F >.80
Sourc e: HirJh way Capacity Manual, 2000, Exh ibit 16-2
8-10
Option
TABLE XI. DELAY SAVINGS COMPARISONS
INTERSECTION OF WELLBORN ROAD AND HOLLEMAN DRIVE
Annual
Delay Construction Years to
Delay {Sec) LOS Savings Costs Payoff
Existin g 49 .9 D ----
1 46 .5 D $13 ,018 753 ,567 57.9
2 43 .2 D 35 ,075 805,305 23 .0
3 42.0 D 42,019 847 ,662 20 .2
4 45.4 D 20 ,135 774,235 38.5
SA 30 .3 c 117,440 1 ,413,02 1 12 .0
58 35 .2 D 83,294 1,413 ,02 1 1 7.0
6 27 .8 c 142,466 1,569,909 11 .0
8-1 1
APPENDIX C-RESULTS OF SYNCHRO 8 ANALYSIS
c
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Eldstlng ;Timlng Plan : Ml
.,J _.. ,. .f
,.__ ' " t ~ \. + ./
81\8 (OIJ EB EBT BR :sm: IIT i'{
lil!le Coofigura~ons •HJ +T 'fj tt•
Volume (vph} 108 99 47 39 56 10 16 182 12
Ideal flow (l"phpl) 1900 moo 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) m~ 0% O>l.
Storage length (h) 0 0 0 0 150 0 100 0
SIOfage lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (fl) 25 25 so 95
Lane Uti!. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1,00 ·1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Fri 0.972 0.850 0.992 0,991
Flt Protected 0.979 0.980 0.950 0,950
Said. Flow (prot) 0 3115 0 0 1825 1583 1770 3511 0 1770 3507 0
Fil Perrrilled 0.979 o .~ao Q.578 0.066
Said. Flow (pErm) 0 3115 0 0 1825 1583 1077 3511 0 123 3507 0
Right Turn on R~d Yes Yes Yes Yes
Said. Flow {RTOR) 19 136 6 7
Lin~ Spe~d (mph) 10 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 604 515 450 373
Tra..-cl Time (s) 34.4 10.0 6.8 5.7
Pea~ Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0,84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Adj . flow (vph) 129 118 56 46 67 71 69 1473 83 19 217 14
Shared Lano Traff:c (%)
lane Group Flow [vp)l) 0 303 0 0 m 71 69 1556 0 19 2:\1 0
Enter Bfod<ed lnlersec6on No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Afgnment left left Riglil left left Right left left Righi left let\ Righi
Median Vfldlh(h) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(fl) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk \\-ldlh(ft) 16 16 16 16
T1ll:l way left Turn l.me Yes Yes
Headwa·1 F<lctor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ttimillg Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number ol DEleclors 1 2 1 2 1 I 2 1 2
Detector Template Len Thru left Thru Rlght left Thrv left Thru
leading Oetec!or (tt) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Traifog Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oelector 1 Positioo(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delec!or 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
Detector I Type Cl•Ex Cl+ Ex Cl•Ex Cit Ex CI•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex CltEx Ct•Ex
Deleelor 1 ChaMcl
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 QO
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °'° OeteGlor 2 Posltion(lt) 24 94 ~ 94
Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 6 6
Deteclor 2 Type CllEx Cl•E~ Cit Ex Cl+Ex
Delecior 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Sp~I NA Sptl NA Perm pmtpl NA pm•pt NA
Pro!e<:lw Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Pernilled Phases 4 6 2
Synchro 8 ·Report
Lanes, Volumes. nniogs 6112/2013
C-1
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive
eoe roo
Detector Phase
Sv.itch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Mnlo'l.lm Spld (s)
Total Sptl(s)
Total Spl I ('I.)
Maximum Green (s)
Yer.<iw Tune (s)
Al ·Red rune (s)
Lost Tlllle Adju~l (s)
Total LostTime (s)
Leadltag
lead -Lag Opoofa?
Veh:de Exteos!on (s)
Reca~Mode
WalkTime(s)
Fla~h Dont Walk (s)
Pedestrian Ca'.ls (#/hr)
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated glC Ratio
vie Ratio
ConltolDela-1
O!Jeue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
App1oach De lay
Approach LOS
3 3
5.0 6.0
22.0 22 .0
n.o 23.o
19.2'1. 19.2}'.
17.0 17.0
4.5 4.5
1.5 1.5
0.0
6.0
lead lead
Yes Yes
3.5 3.G
None No ne
4.0 4.0
12.0 12.0
0 0
15.8
0.13
0.71
56 .5
o.o
56.5
E
56.5
E
Alea Type: Other
Cycle l"19th : 120
Actualeil Cyda length: 120
4 4
13.0 13.0 13.0 n.o n.o no
23 .0 23.0 23 .0
19.2% 19.2% 19.2".
17,0 li.O 17.0
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.5 1.5 1.5
0.0 0.0
6.0 6.0
Lag Lag L«g
Yes Yes Yes
3.0 3.0 3.0
None None None
4.0 0 4.0
12.0 12.0 12 .0
0 0 0
14.1 14 .1
0.12 0.12.
0.53 0.23
68.8 1.8
0.0 0.0
68.8 1.8
E A
36.8
D
Oflsel: 101 (84%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Stail of Green
Natural Cyc' · 105
Control Type : Aclva!ed ·Coor<fnaled
M~ximum vie Ratio: 0.80
Intersection Signal Delay: 29.9 ln~erse clioo LOS: C
t
BT
6
7.0 10.0
12.5 24.5
14.0 60.0
lf .7% 50.0%
8.5 53.5
4.0 4.5
1:5 2.0
0.0 0.0
5.5 6.5
lead l.eg
Yes Yes
2.0 4.5
None C·Max
8.0
10.0
0
70.7 66 .6
0.59 0.66
0.10 0.80
11.0 .27 .0
0.0 o.o
11.0 27 .0
e c
26.3
c
lnte 1section C~ity Umali-On 80.5% ICU Level of Serl.ce 0
Analysts Period (min) 15
Syncluo 8 • Report
Lanes, VQ!umes, Tlmlogs
C-2
ExM;119;TL'11!n9 Plan: AM
7.0 10.0
12.S 24.5
14 .0 60.0
11 .7% 50.0%
8.5 53.5
4.0 4.5
1.5 2.0
0.0 0.0
5,5 6,5
lead lag
Yes Yes
2.0 4.5
None C·Max
8.0
10.0
0
67.9 61.3
0.57 0.51
0.12 0.13
12.2 16.8
0.0 0.0
12.2 16.6
B B
16.2
8
611212.013
1: We ll born Road & Holleman Drive Exis fing;Tim1ng ~o : OP
.,)> -+ t ., +-" '\ t t' '. + ..;
aneGtoul! 8 filJ
lane Confisuralioos t1t+
Volume (>'Ph) 93 142 66 50 54 54
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 15% 0" ..
Sto1age Length (R) 0 0 0 0 150 0 100 0
SI01ag e Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Leng!IJ (H) 25 25 90 95
Lane um. F~t()( 0.95 0,95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Fri o.ea1 0.850 0.988 0.985
Fil Protected 0.985 0.988 0.950 0.95 0
Satd. Flow (pro!) 0 3118 0 0 1840 1583 mo 3497 0 1770 3486 0
FKPeroil!ed 0.985 0.988 0.337 0.250
Said. Flow (pe1m) 0 3118 0 0 1840 1583 628 3497 0 466 3486 0
Righi Turn co Re<l Yes Yes Yes. Yes
Said. flow (RTOR) 33 112 9 12
link Speed (mph) 10 35 45 45
liok Distance (ft) 504 515 450 373
Travel Time (s) 34.4 10.0 6.8 5.7
Pea~ Hour Futor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,$3 0.93 0.93
Adj . F(ow (~-ph) 100 153 71 54 173 82 102 689 58 90 542 58
Sllated le11e Tr affic (%)
lane Group Flow (1ph) 0 324 0 0 227 82 102 74 7 0 90 6()-) 0
Ente r Blocked lnlersection t.'o No No No No No No No No No No No
Lene Afignnient left Le ft Righi Len left Righi Len left Right l eft left Right
Media11 Wodlh(ft) 0 0 12 12
Uok O(fset(fi) 0 0 0 0
C!osswa~~ Vlidlh(ll) 16 16 16 16
Tl'.'Ol'la'/leftTurn laie Yes Yes
Headway Fac!o r 1.11 l.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Tum1119 Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
Detect()( Template left T(itJJ left Th(U Righi left TJw l eJl ThnJ
leadilg Detector {ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Tr a.iV\9 Detec!Of (~) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Positioo(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DeleGtOl 1 Size(ll) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Typo Ch Ex Ct<Ex Cl+Ex CltE.x Ct•Ex Cl•Ex Cl+Ex Cl•Ex Cfth
Deleclor 1 Channe l
Detector I Exlend (s) o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0
DeteclOI 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~o o.o 0.0 o.o
DeteciOf 1 De!ay (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Pos'tion(fl) 94 94 94 94
De tector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 6 6
De tector 2 Type Cit Ex Cl•Ex C!•Ex Cit Ex
De:ector 2 ChaMel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Sp Lt NA SpU NA Perm pmtp\ NA pm •pt NA
Pto\ected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
PermiUed Phases 4 6 2
Synchro 8 ·Report
lenes, Volume s, rm119s 611212013
C-3
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive
_,} _,. t .f -~ '\
eneGrcue EB EST ~
De lwor Phase 3 3
S1•Jtch Phase
f&nitroo.m In itial (s) 5.0 5.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 7.0
1.·~rimvr.n s~t (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 n.o 22.0 12.5
Total Split (s) 23.0 23 .0 26.0 26.0 26.0 14.0
Total Split (%) 24.2% 24 .2% 27.4 % 27.4% 27.4 % 14.7%
Maximum Green (s) 17.0 17.0 20.0 20.0 2().0 8.5
Ye~wTime(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.0
Alf Red Tune (s) l.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Tune Adjust (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Tima(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 M
Lead/Lag lead lead lag Lag Lag lead
lead·Leg Op timi ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehkle Extens'.on (s) 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
Reca!J Mode Nooe NOiie Nooe Non& None None
Walk Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
flash Dool Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Pedestrian Cals (llAlr) 0 0 0 0 0
Ac!Etrct Green (s) 14.9 1tl'.7 16.7 41.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.44
vfoRa do 0.63 0.70 0.20 0.28
Contlot Delay 38 .9 48.6 1.0 17.4
Oue ueOelay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 38 .9 48 .6 1.0 17.4
LOS D b A B
Ap))IO<Kll Delay 38 .9 35 .0
Approadi LOS D D
lntme ciion Sii®n~
Area Type : Other
Cycle length: 95
Actuated C)'de Length : 95
Offset: 64 (57%), Refe renced lo phase 2:SSTL Md 6:NBTl, Start of Green
Natur•l Cfcie: 85
C()nltol Type : Actuated ·Coordin a!ed
M<®n um vlcRalio: 0.70
lnteisectioo S!gnal Delay: 30.0
Intersection C2pacity Uli!izalion 65.2%
Analysis Period (min) 15
1: Wellborn Ro3'.I & Holleman Drive
Sj'flchto 8 • Report
lanes, Volume s, Tm ngs
lnft!lseefon LOS : C
ICU Levai of Sef'lite C
C-4
Existing;Tim!ng Plan : OP
t ,.. \. J .,.!
6
10.0 7.0 10.0
24.5 12.5 24 .5
'32.0 14 .0 32.0
33.7% 14.7¥. 33.7%
25 .5 8.5 25.6
4.5 4.0 4.5
2.0 1.5 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
6.5· 5,5 6.6
lag lead Lag
Yes Yes Yes
4.5 2.0 4.5
C·Max None C.Max
8.0 8.0
10.0 10.0
0 0
34 .2 41.3 34.1
0.3Q OA3 0.36
0.69 0.29 0.48
29 .2 18.0 27.0
0.0 0.0 0,.0
29.2 18.0 27.0
c 8 c
27.7 25 .9
c c --,
'?'01
61121'2013
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Ellisting ;T111ling Plan : PM
.> __.. ") .f
.,.._ ' '\ t I" \. ~ ..;
aoe rw2 SBT s1m
lane Con figurations 4 tt•
Volume (vph) 134 83 68 239 70 934 92
lde<I Flow (vphpQ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 15% or. 0% 0%
Sk>rage lenglh (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 100 0
Storag~ LMel 0 0 0 1 j 0 1 0
Taper leng th (fl) 25 25 90 95
lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 l.00 O.S5 0.95
frt 0.973 0.850 o.ess 0.987
Fil Protecied 0,985 0.989 0.950 0.950
Sa !d. flow (pro!) 0 2972 0 0 1842 1583 1770 3485 0 1770 3493 0
flt Permi1led 0,985 0.989 o.oso 0.239
Said . Flow (peim) 0 2972 0 0 1842 1583 168 3486 0 445 3493 0
Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. flow (RTOR) 19 136 11 10
Link Speed (mph) 10 35 45 45
Link Distance (h) 604 515 450 373
Travel f1111e (s) 34.4 io.o 6.8 5.7
Pe ak Hour FaclOI o .~o 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 O.SO 0,90 0.90
Adj. flow (vph) 149 261 92 76 266 77 119 681 7$ 136 10~8 102
Shated Lene Traffic ('.S)
lane Group Flow (vph) 0 502 0 0 342 77 119 759 0 136 11 40 0
Entei B!ocl;ed Intersection No ~lo No No No No llo No No No No No
l ane A!l9oment Left lcfl Righi lefl left Right Lefl left Right left left Right
11.edian ~dlh(ft) 0 0 12 12
IJIJk Ofrse~ft) 0 0 0 0
Crossvtar< VMlh(tt) 16 16 16 16
Two way left Turn lane Yes Yes
Headway faclOI 1.11 1.16 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Sr-eed (fl'9h) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Nurrber or Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
Detetlot Template Lei\ Thro left Thru Right left Thru lei\ Thru
leading Oetec1or (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
T rai Cr.9 Detector (fl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oeteot01 1 Posltion(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oeletlor 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
DEleclor 1 l)-pe Cl+ Ex Cl•Ex Ct•Ex Cl+ Ex Cl•EJ< Cl+Ex CltEx Cl+ Ex Cl•Ex
Oill1J1;for I Ch31lJJeJ
Dete cfor 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dete ctor I QqelH! (s) 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector t Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Posilioo (ft) 94 94 94 94
Det ector 2 Size(lt) 6 6 6 6
Oeleclor 2 Type Citi:~ Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 ChaMel
Detector 2 Ex.tend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn T)i>e Sptt NA Sp51 NA Perm pm+ pl NA pm•pl NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Ph~ses 4 6 2
Synchro 8-Report
lanes, Vo!omes, Tlm'ngs 611212013
C-5
1: Well born Ro ad & Holl eman Drive
_,} -+ ., ~ .,._ ' ~
e o roun EBt
Oeleclot fhase _ 3 4
Sv.ilch Phase
Milllmum l(ii~el (s) 5.0 5.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 7.0
Minimum Sp!~ {s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22 .0 12.5
Total Split {s) 26.0 26.0 30.0 30:0 30.0 14.0
Total Split (%) 21.n~ 21.7% 25.0~ 25.03 25.0% 11 .7%
Maximwn Green (s) 20,0 20.0 24.0 24.0 24 .0 8.5
Yel low Time (s) 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.0
Al-REd TlfllG {s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
lost Tlllle Ad)tjst (s) o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total lost lime {s) M 6.0 6.0 5.6
leadA.ag lead l ead lag Lag lag Lead
Lead-lag Optimi ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehlde Exlen,ion (s) 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
Recall Mode None None None f'10ne None None
warx.rime(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Ftash Oonl Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0
Pedesttian Ce:ts (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effot .Green (s) 20.0 23.7 23.7 53.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.44
vie Ratio 0,98 0.94 0.18 0.66
Coo~ol Delay 83.9 82 .6 1.2 38.0
OueueDelay 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0
Total Delay 83 .9 82 .6 1.2 38.0
LOS F F A D
Approach Delay 83 .9 67 .G
Approach LOS F E
/Ilea Type: O!her
Cycle lengll!: 120
Actuated Cycle length: 120
Olfsel: 110 (92%). Referenced lo phase 2:SBTL end 6:NBTL, Slart of Green
Natural C)'cie; 95
Cootrol Type: Actuated-Coordinated
h1a1j111um v/c Ralio : 0.98
Intersection Sigoal Delay: 49.9
lntertectiOn Capacity UGlizatioo 84.8%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synch ro 8-Report
Lanes, Volumes, Tunings
lnlerse cUon LOS: D
ICU Level of Serv'.re E
lll
C-6
Exisliflg;Tin\!ng Plan : PM
t r \. ~ ,.I
sift' Stm
6 2
fQ ,O 7.0 10.0
24.5 12.5 24.5
50.0 14.0 50.0
41.7% fl.7% 41.7 14
43.5 8.5 43.5
4.6 4.0 4.5
2.0 1.5 2.0
o.o 0.0 0.0
6.5 5.6 6.6
Lag lead Lag
Yes Yes Ye$
4.5 2.0 4.6
C·M<lx None C.Max
6.0 8.0
10.0 10.0
0 0
44,2 63 .4 44 .3
0.37 0.44 0.37
0.59 0.47 0.88
3i5 23 .0 44 .6
0.0 0.0 0.0
32.5 23.0 44 .6
c c D
33.3 42.3
c D
v.i
s112no13
C-7
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive
.J--+ .. .f
._ ~ "'\
1l/MI IOU(! St
S\'/itcli Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 5.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 7.0
[A"1imumSplil(s) 22.0 22 .0 22.0 22.0 22 .0 12.5
Total Spf~ (s) 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 30 .0 14 .0
jotel Spl~ (%) 21.7l4 21.7% 25.0~ 25.0% 25 .0% 11.7%
Ma-<lmu m Greeo (s) 20.0 20.0 24 .0 24.0 24.0 8.5
Ycliow TlqJo (s) 4.6 4.5 4.5 4,5 4,5 4.0
All ·Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 f.5 1.5
~os! r1111e Adjus t (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lostnrne {s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5
L~adltag lead lead lag lag lag lead
Lead-Lag Op fm!zo? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Veh.'<le Extens ion (s) 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
Recall t/.o<le None None NOile Nor.e None Nona
W;/,kT Jrne(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Flash Oont Walk (s) 12.0 i2.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Pedestrian Cals (lifllr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Elfct Green (s) 19.6 23 .. 7 23.7 63.6
Actuated glC Ratio 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.45
vie Ratio 0.88 o.e4 0.18 0.65
Control Delay 65.0 82.6 1.2 37.7
Queue~!ay 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0
Total Delay 65 .0 82.6 1.2 37.7
LOS E F A D
Approach Delay 65.0 67.6
Approach LOS E E
[tite1m SUmm~
Area Type : Othes
Cycle length : 120
Aclualed Cycle Le11g th: 120
Olfse\: 101 (84 %), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and G:NBTL, SI art of Green
Natural Cycle: 95
Coof!ol Type: Actualed ·Coord inalEd
Maximum v/c Ralio: 0.94
intersection Sigltal Delay'. 46 .5
lnle1se clion Capacity Unizaron 84 .1%
A!ialysi s Period (riiio) 15
Synctiro 8 • Report
Lanes. Vol umes, Timlng s
lnlerseet;on LOS: D
ICU l evel of Serlie1! E
pJ
C-8
Option 1; Tim'lig Plan: PM
t /" '.. ! .J
s l sar se l
10.0 7.0 10.0 I
24.5 12.5 24.5 r 50.0 14.0 50.0
41.7% 11.7% 41.7%
43.5 8.5 43.5
(5 4,0 4.5
2~0 1.5 2.0
o.o 0.0 0.0 es 5.5 6.5
leg lead lag
Yes Yes Yes
4.5 2.0 4.5
C·Max None C-1.tix
8.0 8.0
10.0 10.0
0 0
44 .6 53.8 44.7
0,37 0.45 0.37
0.58 0.47 0.87
32 .3 22.8 43.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
32 .~ 22.8 43.8
c c D
33 .0 41.5
c D
f-~1
JOs
6112no 13
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive OpUoo 2;Tim!ng Plan: PM .,> __,. • -f ..... '-"' t I' \. i ,.I ~ lami Conf19vra00ns 4t• +1 jf lj tr. 1'i H rt Volume(vph) 134 235 83 68 239 69 107 61.3 70 122 934 92 Ideal Flov1 (vphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 S!oroge Leog"1 (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 loo 100 S!01age l~es 0 0 0 1 1 0 . ! Tepe1 length (fl) 25 25 90 Lane ULl. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr! 0.973 0.850 0.985 0.850 Flt P1ottcled 0.985 0.989 0.950 0,950 Said. flow (plot) 0 3392 0 0 1&42 1583 1770 3480 0 mo 3539 1583 FUPe1rnltted 0.985 0.989 0.114 0.241 $a!d. Flow (perm) 0 3392 0 0 1842 1583 212 3486 0 449 3539 1583 Righi Tum 0(1 Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RrOR) 19 136 11 132 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Lfnk Distaooe (R) 504 615 450 373 Tr.ave! TJ111e (s) 9.8 10.0 6.8 5.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 D.90 0.90 0.90 MO Adj. Flow (vph) Shared l1111e Traffic(%) 149 261 92 76 266 71 119 681 76 136 1038 102 lane Group Flow (vph) 0 502 0 0 342 7l 119 759 0 136 1038 102 Enler Blocked lotersectloo No No No tto No No No No No No No No lane Mgnment Left Left Right left left Right left lefi Right lGft Left Right Median Width(~) 0 0 12 12 link Offsel(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crom/~ \'f.d!h(ft) 16 16 16 16 T\'.I> way Left Tum Lene Yes Yes Headway F ~101 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.oo 1.00 1.00 T~rning Speed (rr.pli) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number .of Detectors 1 2 l 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Detector Template left Tf\ru left Thru Right lelt Thru Lefl Tf\ru Right leading Oeteclor (A) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 Trailing De!eclor (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D.eleclor 1 Posillon[ll) ti .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OeteGtOI 1 Size(A) 20 6 20 6 2() 20 6 20 6 20 balec!or 1 Type CltEx Clth Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cltlix Cl<l':x Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex DetectOI 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Da!ector 1. Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oefe<:tor 1 De!ay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.Q M Detector 2 Pos!lion[ft) !!4 94 94 94 Pe!ec!OI 2 Size{ft) 6 6 6 6 Dated or 2 Typo Cl•Ex CltEx Cl•EX Cl•Ex Daledor 2 Channel Detector 2 E~end (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Torn Type Split NA SpH NA Perm plillpt NA pm•·pt NA Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 I 6 5 2 Perm'tled Phases 4 6 2 2 Detootor Phaso 3 3 4 4 4 I 6 5 2 2 Synchlo 8 -Report lenes, Volt1mes, Tmngs 611mou C-9
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive
.,> -t> " .f
,.__ '-~
[~e roue
Sv.itch Phase
t.~nimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 13.0 13..0 13.0 7.0
11,:111mum Split (s) 22.0 22 .0 2.2.0 22.0 no 12.5
Tot al Split (s) 26.0 26 .0 30 .0 30.0 30.0 14.0
Tot al Split(%) 21 .7% 21.7 % 25.0% 25:0% 25.0}~ 11.7%.
Maximum Green (s) 20.0 20 .0 24 .0 24 .0 24.0 8.5
)'.eJowTime (s} 4.5 4.5 4.5 ~-!i 4.5 4.0
All·Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total lost Tfme (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5
leadll.ag lead Le ad lag Lag lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optlm!ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye$ Yes
Vehicle E~teosioo (s) 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
Recal 'I.ode Nooe Nooe None Nono None Nono
WalfTime (s) l o 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Flash Dool W~~ (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
pede s ~ian ca:is (illh1) 0 0 0 0 0
Atl Ettel Gr een (s) 19.6 23.7 23 .7 63 .6
Actuated 9/C Ra~o 0;16 0.20 0.20 0.45
vie Ratio 0.88 0.94 0.18 0.60
Conttol Delay 65 .0 82.6 1.2 30.8
Queue O.clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o
Tola! Delay 65.0 82.6 1.2 30.8
LOS E F A c
Appro ach Delay 65 .0 67.6
Appro ach lOS E E
~a!}'.
Area Type: other
Cycle LEngth : 120
Actuated Cycle l~ngl h: 120
Olfsel: 101 {8 4%), Re feren,ed lo phase1 :SBTL a11d 6:NBTl, S!ait ol G1ee o
Natural CyG!e: 85
Cont19' Type: 4ctua\ed'.COordinali!d
Maximum vie Reto : 0.94
!n\ersection Signal O~lay: 43.2
ln!erscctioo Capadl y U!itizaUon 81.1 %
An alysis Perilld (m1n) 15
Synchro 8 ·Report
LP.n es, \fol umes, Tim'ngs
Intersection LOS: 0
ICU leve l ofSe rvlce 0
4t,3
16:$
C-10
Opton 2;fur.ing Piao : PM
t t' '. + ..I
$1[ ,,4 Sl>T SBR.
10.0 7.0 10.0 tO .O
24.5 12.5 24.~ 24 .5 r
50.0 14.0 50.0 50 .0
41.7% 11.1 % 41.7 % 41.7.%
43.5 8.5 43.5 43.5
4:5 4 .. Q 4.{) 4.5
2.0 1.5 2:0 2.0 o.o o,o o,<l Q.O
6.5 5:5 6:5 6.5
l ag load lag l ag
Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5
C·Max None. C·Max C·M ax
8.0 8.0 8.0
10.0 10.0 10.0
0 0 0
44 .6 53.8 44.7 4V
0.37 0.45 0.37 0.37
0.5 8 OA7 0.79 0,15
32 .3 22.8 39.0 2.5
0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0
32 .3 22.8 39.0 2.5
c c D A
32.1 34.4
c c ,
611212013 r
I
1; Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 3;Tinmg Plan: PM
_,,. _., ~ .f +-' "' t t' ~ i ~
weL W8T SBT Sl!R
lane Con [i91Jrations "i t tt~
Volume (vph) 134 83 68 239 70 9J4 92
Ideal f low (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1000 1SCO 1900
S!0129e length (0) 0 0 0 0 0
StO!age Lani)$ 0 0 1 0 0
Ta pet Lefl!Jth (ft) 25 25
lane Uti l. Fa.tor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frt Q.973 ·o.eso 0.985 0,987
Flt Protected 0.985 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (Pfol) 0 3392 0 1770 1863 1583 1770 3486 0 1770 3493 0
Flt Permtted 0.985 0.950 0.092 0.252
Said , flow (perm) 0 3392 0 1770 1863 1583 171 3486 0 469 34 93 -0
Right Tum Oil Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd . Flow (RTOR) 19 136 11 10
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Lin~ Distance ("l 504 515 450 373
Tr avel Time (s) 9.8 10.0 6.8 5.7
Pea.I: Hour Faci01 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 149 261 92 76 266 17 119 681 78 136 1038 102
Shared lane Traffic(%)
lane Grou p flow (vph) 0 502 0 76 266 77 119 759 0 136 1140 0
Enter Bloclted lntcisec tlon No No No No No No No No No No No Ho
Lane Afgomenl lei\ lell Right left l eft Right left Le ft Right l eft left Right
Median WJdth(ft) 12 12 12 12
Uok Offsel (ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswat< WfdU1(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two 1·~ Le ft Turn Lano Yes YES
Headway Fa<:tor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (m ph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number ol De tecl01s 1 2 1 2 1 I 2 I 2
Detector Template lef\ Thru Left Th ru Right Left Ttvu l eft Thru
leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Tta'.llng Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Pos'tion(f1) 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0
Delecior 1 Sile(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
Del~tor 1 Type C1•Ex CltEx Cit Ex Cf!Ex Cl•Ex CllEx Cl•EK Ci•Ex Cl•Ex
OetectOI 1 Chann el
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oetect011 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DeteclO! I Delay (s) o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0
Detector 2 Posil'on(ll) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size (ft) 6 6 G 6
Detector 2 Type Cl•Ex Cit Ex CltEx Cl•Ex
Oel~tor 2 Channel
Deleclol 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tum Type Spl:l NA Spfl NA Perm pmtpl NA pm•pl NA
Protected Phas es 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Pe11nitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 3 4 4 4 1 5 2 .... :
Synchro 8 • RepO!t
lanes, Vol umes, rmngs 6/121201 3
C-11
1: We llborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 3;Tmiog Plan: PM
.,,> _.. t ~ +-'-"\ t r ~ i ,.!
EBT EBlf Will V/nf WBR
S1•,l!ch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0
Mil1lmun1 Sp~t (s) no 22.0 22.0 no 22.0 12,6 24 .5 12.5 24 .5
Total Spilt (s) 20.0 26.0 30 .0 30.0 30.0 14.0 50 .0 14.0 50.0
Totatspm (%J 21.7% 21.7 % 25.0% 25.0'1, 25.0% 11.7% 41.7% 11.7% 41.7 %
Maitimum Green (s) 2.0.0 20.0 24 .0 24.0 24 .0 8.5 43 .5 8.5 43.5
Ve~ow rlllle (s) 4.5 4.6 .4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4,5 4.0 4.5
All ·Re<I rl/lle (s) 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0
lost Time Acf.usl (s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 o,o 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 6.5 5.5 6.5
lead!lag lead Lead Lag Lag Lag lead Leg lead La<J
Lead ·leg opi;m;ze? Yes Yes Yes Ye!S Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Exlens'oo (s) 3.5 3.5 3,0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5
R~t/.o<le None Hono None None None None C-Max Nono C-Ma<
Walk Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0
flash Dool Wa'.k (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0
Pedeslrian CaJs (#"11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effcl Green (s) 19.6 21.0 21.0 2.l.O 66.2 47.1 66.6 47.3
Actuated g!C Ra ~o o.1s 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.47 0.39 0.47 0.39
v:cRafo 0.86 0.25 0.82 0.20 0.64 0.55 0.44 0.82
COO!tol Delay 65.0 43 .6 67A 1.4 35.1 30.5 21.0 39.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 65 .0 43.6 67.4 1.4 35.t 30.5 21.0 39.3
LOS E 0 E A 0 c c 0
Appioooh Delay 65.0 61 .0 31.1 37.4
Apptoach LOS E 0 c 0
tofersecilon SullY!lalY ..,
/vea Type : Other
Cycle length: 120
Aclualed C)-c!O Length: 120
Ollsel: 101 (84%), Relerenced lo phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTl, Start of Green
Natural Cycle : 85
Cooltol Tnie: Actvaled ·C00<dina!ed
Mmmum vie Ratio: 0.88
lntc rsecl'on S'gnal Delay: 42 .0 lnie1mticn LOS: 0
lntersetUon Capacity Ut~ization 80.3 % ICU lwel of SclY'.ce D
Analysis Period (m'.n) 15
't°o4
)Of
i
! .
! r
Synthro 8 • Repotl I Lanes, Volumes, ilftillgs 6112/2013 I
I
C-12
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 4;fim1ng Plan: PM
..> _.,. .,, .f ..... "-. '\ t !' \. + .;
Lene G1oue SB8
Lene Conf19Urations
Vo!vm e(vph) 134 83 68 92
Ide al Flow (vphpl) 1900 1200 1900 1900
Stou•ge leng lh (fl) 0 0 0 0
St orage lanes 0 0 0 0
T apet Lenglh (ft) 25 25
lane Ulil. F2 tior 0.95 0,95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Fl\ 0.973 0.850 0.850 0.987
Fii Prolected 0.985 0.989 0.950 0.950
Sa !d. Flow (piol) 0 3392 0 0 1842 1683 1770 3539 1583 1770 3493 0
FllPermilte d 0.98 5 0,089 0.000 0.285
Sa id. Flow (perm) 0 3392 0 0 1842 1583 168 3-539 1583 531 3493 0
Right Tom oo Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sa'.d. Flo\•1 (RTOR) 19 135 132 10
Link Speed (mph) 35 .35 45 45
Linlt Dis tance (ft) 504 515 450 373
Travel Time (s) 9.8 10.0 6.8 5.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow(l'ph) 149 261 92 76 266 77 119 681 78 136 1038 102
Shared l2ne Traff!o (%)
Lane Gloup Flow (vph) 0 502 0 0 342 71 119 681 78 136 1140 0
En ter Blocked Intersection tlo No No No I-lo No No No No No No No
l ane Af:gnnien l Le n lefi Right left hA Righi left Le tt Right left left Right
Med ian ~\ldlh(fi) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(h) 0 0 0 0
Crosswa& \'fidlh (fl) 16 16 16 16
l\<.') way left Tvrn Lane Ye s Yes
Headway F <lGIOI 1.00 1.00 I.CO 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turnlng Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Numbe r of Detectors 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
De1eclor T empl a~e leH Thru left Thru Right Left Thru Righ t Left Thro
Le ad'J19 Detector (fl) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100
Traliog Detector (fl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
De!ectOf 1 Po sition (fl ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
De tecklr 1 Size(h) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6
De tector 1 Type Cl•Ex CflEx C!•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex ct•Ex Cl•Ex C!•Ex Cl•Ex Cl!EK
Deteclor 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Da1ed01 2 Position(tt) 94 94 94 94
Oe!e clor 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Det.ec\QI 2 Type Cl+ Ex Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cl!Ex
De tector 2 Channel
Detec!or 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tum Type Spl.t NA Sp!il NA Perm pmtp t NA Perm pmtpt NA
Protec ted Pnases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Pe miUed Phases 4 6 6 2
Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 1 6 6 5 2
S)'!1cluo 8 ·Report
Lanes, VolunJGs, Timings 6112120 13
C-13
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 4;T1min9 Platt PM ,,)--+ ~ f ,._ '-'\ t I' \.. i .I Lliii9Giooj! ~ar-~llr-£mr \~~t-mw ileR-ser-ss~B'R Sv.itch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 -5.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 Minimum SpEI (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 12.5 24,5 24.5 12.5 24.5 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 14.0 50.0 50.0 14.0 50.0 Tot8' SpU('A) 21.7~ 21.7% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 11.7% 41.7% 41.7% 11.7% 41.7% M"imum Green (s) 20.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 8.5 43.5 43.6 8.5 43.5 Yenov1Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 •t5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 An-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 lost TTme Adj11st (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total LostTime (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 Lead/tag Lead Lead Lag lag Lag lead lag tag Lead lag lead·lag Opf'1111ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Veh'de E~ens!on (s) 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 4.5 Recall. II.ode Nooe None Nooe Ncne None None C-i,tax C-Max None C-Max WaJkTfme(s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0. 8.0 8.0 Flash Dool war< (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Pedeslrian C~~s (#illr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effc! Green (s) 19.6 23.7 23.7 53.6 44.6 44.6 63.8 44.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.45 0.37 0.37 OAS 0.37 v/cRa!io 0.88 0.94 0.18 0.65 0.52 0.12 0.42 0.87 Co<iltol Delay 65.0 82.6 1.2 37.7 31.4 0.9 2M 43.& Ove1Je Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 TotelOelay 65.0 82.6 1.2 37.7 31.4 0.9 21.4 43.8 LOS E F A D c A c 0 Approacll Delay 65.0 67.6 29.S 41.4 Approach LOS E E c D ~re1secton Su(Jlm~ .._. ·· --......... -....._~-~-----, Area Type: Ol/ler Cycle length: 120 Actuated Cycle Lef19\h: 120 Offset: 101 (84%). Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and G:NBTL, Start or Green Na!ur al Cycle: 95 Coo.!lol Type: Acluated-Coo1dinaled Maximum vie Ratio: 0.94 l~ler$ectioo Signal Defa/,4~.4 Intersect-Oil. LOS: D lntersecllon Capacityll!Jliza!ion 84.13 ICU L<Nel o1 Servico E Analysis Period (m'n) 15 Synchro 8 -Report lanes, Volumes, Timings C-14 f"oq '.lO r./1212013 l
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 5;Tinin9 PfaQ: PIA _,> -+ t f ._ ~ "'\ t ~ \,;. ~ ..; ane<>roue···~·vc-· .. 'tar -eirr-EllR WBl wsr-WBR -1m::::-11BT NBR ;~~(-Sar-self lane Coof19utaUons ' tt• 'l tt• lj tf• "i tt1 Vo!vme (vph) 134 235 83 68 239 69 107 613 70 122 934 92 ~ Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storilge Leo9lll {AJ 150 0 100 0 150 0 fOo 0 i Storage Lanes · 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I Taper Lengtli (ft) 25 25 90 .95 l Lane Ulll. Fact« 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 frt -0.961 0.966 0.985 o.ss1 Fft Protected 0.950 0,950 0950 0.950 Sa!d. Flow (prol) 1170 3401 0 1770 ;34!9 0 1770 3486 0 17?0. 3493. 0 Fil Permitted 0.326 0.540 0.135 0.289 Said. Flovi (petm) 607 3401 0 ·1oos 3419 0 251 3486 0 538 }193 0 Righi Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 39 29 11 10 Lin.~ Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Dlslance (ft) 504 515 450 373 Travel Time (s) 9.8 10.0 6.8 5.7 Peak HO\lffador 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,00 0.90 0,90 0.90 o.M 0.00 0.00 Adj. Flow (vph) H9 261 92 76 2"o6 71 119 681 78 136 1038 102 Shared Lane Traffi<: (%) lane Group Flow (vph) 149 353 0 76 343 0 119 759 0 136 1140 0 Enler Blocked lnlersection No No No No No No No No No fin Ni> No looe Afgnmenl left Left Righi lelt Left RJghl Lett left Righi left left Righi Median Wxllh(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Olrsel!fl) 0 0 0 0 Cross1•tat~ \'lidlh(fi) 16 16 16 16 T1ll'.l way left Toro lane Yes Yes Headway f aelOI 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 j;OO Tumillg Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Dele~(01$ 1 2 1 2 1 2. 1' 2 Deteclor Template Len Thru left Thru Left lhru Left lhru Leading Deletlor (n) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 Traif:ng Oelecior (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oeteclor 1. Posiliotl[fl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oe\eclor 1 Slie{fi) 20 G 20 6 20 6 20. 6 Detector 1 Type CllEx CllEx Cl+Ex c1•Ex CltEX Cl•Ex Cl~Ex Cl•Eic Delector I Channel Meolor 1 ExteM (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detecior 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector I Delay (s) 0.() 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.Q o.o Detector 2 Positicn(h) 94 e4 94 ~4 Delecior 2 Siie(ft) 6 6 6 6 Oeiector 2 Type cM:x Cit Ex Cl•E.>: Cl•EX Oetecior 2 Channel Oeleclot 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tll(!l lype pn11pl NA pmtpl NA pm!pl NA pm•ri! NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 .6 5 2 i Perm:tled Phases 8 4 6 2 L Detector Phase 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 S}11tllre> 8 ·Report I Lanes, Volumes, Tfrmngs 6i12l2013 C-15
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 5;Titrillg Plan: PM ,,,> _.,. ~ f ..-" ~ t ,.. \. i .; b&11t orooe · · .. ~ EBl ''ller-eeR 'WBL -wat \WR-·-~in""-ffett -ser SBr--SSlt $-l~toh Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 13.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 Minimum Sp1il (s) 10.5 22.5 10.0 2'.5 12.5 24.5 12.5 24;5 Total Split (s) 20.0 36.0 20.0 36.0 14.0 50.0 14.0 50.0 T01al Sptt (S>) 16.7% 30.0~ 16.7% 30.0% 11.7% 41.7% 11.7% 41.7% Maximum Green (s) 14.5 29.5 14.5 29.5 8.5 43.5 8.5 43.5 YellowTflll${s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 All·Re<.ITime (s) 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 Lost Time Adj11si (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T olaf los!Time (s) 5.5 6,5 5.5 6.5 5.6 6.5 5.5 6.5 ~Qad!lag lead Lag lezd lag lead leg lead lag Lead·Lag Oplim1ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Veh!cfe Extension {s) 2.0 4.5 2.0 4,5 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 RecaUt.{ode None None None None Nooe C·Max None CMax Walk Time (s) 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 fl3Sh Don! Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pedes!lian Ca!ls (lffllr) 0 0 0 0 Acl Effct Green (s) 35.3 24.0 27.2 18.1 67.2 67.1 66.8 56.9 Actuated glC Ratio 0.29 0.20 0.23 0.15 0.56 0.48 0,55 OA7 vie Ratio 0.51 0.50 0.27 0.64 0.46 0.46 0.35 0.69 Control Delay 36.7 40.3 31.3 48.8 17.8 23.3 14.2 28.7 Queue Delay 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TolalOelay 36.7 40.3 31.3 48.8 17.& 23.3 14.2 28.7 LOS D D c D B c B c Approacll Delay 39.2 45.6 22.5 27.2 ApP1oacil LOS 0 D c c jtei~ SOMma~ . ·-Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 A.eluate<! Cyde length: 120 Offset lO! (84%), Referonced lo pllase 2:SBTL Md 6:NBTL, Stall of Green Natural C)'Gf~ 80 Coo~ol Type: AG!uated-Cooldlnal&d Ma>.imum vie Ratio: 0.69 Intersection Signal Delay: 30-3 Intersection Capacily U~'lizaliOn 72.9» Ao?Jysis Perlod (min) 15 Syoehro 8 • Repo1I lanes, Vo1umes, ivn'llgs lo\ersection LOS: C ICU Lel'el of Servico C 6112/2013 C-16
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option SA;Tfmlng Plan: PM
_)-._.. .. .('" ..._ "-<\ t ,.. \. l .I
@roo2 V/liT WBR
Lano Coofigwal'ons 4t ' Volume (vph) \34 68 239 69 70 92
l<fea! flow (vphpl) moo 1000 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage leng\h (fl) 0 0 100 0 0
S!orage lanes 0 0 1 0 0
Taper lEngth (ft) 25 25
Lane Ufil. Fector 0.95 0.95 1.00 o.ss 0.9S 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.850 0.985 0.987
Flt Protected 0.982 0.989 0.950 0.950
Sald. Flow fprol) 0 3476 1583 0 3500 1583 1770 3486 0 1770 3493 0
FllPermi lled 0.982 0.089 0.115 0.270
Said. flow (perm) 0 3476 1583 0 3500 1583 214 3486 0 603 3493 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sa!d. Flow (RTOR) 136 136 11 10
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (n) 504 515 450 373
Travel Tune (s) 9.8 10.0 6.8 6.7
Pea'.< Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 o.eo 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 o.eo
Adj. Flow (vph) 149 281 92 76 266 77 119 681 78 136 1038 102
Shared Lene Traffic(%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 410 92 0 342 77 119 759 0 136 1140 0
Enter Bloclied Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Afignmenl left Lefl Rigf\l Lefl left Righi Left lefi Right left Left Righi
M~d ian \V.d lh(fl} 0 0 12 12
Link orrset(tt) 0 0 0 0
Cro~walk \\ldlh[lt) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn l !)lle Yes Yes
Headway Facl¢< 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.QO LOO 1.00
Turning Speed {mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detector$ 1 2 1 I 2 1 1 2 1 2
OeteciO! Template tell Thru Right left Thru Righi lelt Thru lelt Thru
leading Oeteclor (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 100
Tr ailng Detector (RJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oeteelol 1 Posi~oo(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deteclor 1 Size(fl) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
Oeleciot 1 Type Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl•& Cl•Ex Cit Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o,o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0,0 0.0 0.0
Detector I Oel;iy (s) 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 PosiOOll(ft) 94 94 94 94
Oeteclor 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Oeteclor 2 TYPe Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Ci t Ex
Oelector 2 Channel
Oeteclof 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Spl l NA Perm Spt t NA Perm pnl•pt NA pm1pt NA
Protected Pham 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Pe1mitted Pha$eS 3 4 6 2
Detector Phase 3 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Synduo 8 • Report
Lanes, Volumes, Ti!l'.Jngs tl/12/2013
C-17
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive Option 5A;Tlml09 Plan: Pl.I ..> __......, .,,.~ ''\ t,.. "'i .,/ LiiieGroup -EBl" "tllf""""Tl!r ·~mr,-WBff'. Nm:-Nlif-NBR SJll"'Ssr-sBR S·1.ilch Phase l.linimum Jnit121 (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 MWmvmSplil(s) 22.0 22.0 22,0 22.0 n.o 22.0 12.5 24.s 12;s 24.5 ~~00 ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ • ~ m Total Split(%) 21.7% 21.7% 21.7% 25.0V. 25.0'4 25.01< 11.7% 41.7% 11.7'!. 41.7% Maximum Green (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 24,0 2~.o 8.5 43.5 8.5 43.5 Ye!low Tltn9 (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.-0 4.5 4.o 4.5 Al·Red rrme (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 Los I Tiffie Adjust (s) 0.0 o.O o.o o.o o.o O,o ~ 0.0 o.o ~~~00 U U U M U U U U leadilag lead lead le<d lag lag lag lead lag lead lag lead-lag Oplinlze? Yes Yts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye; Yes Yes Vehkle Ex!eo$joo (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 Recelf Mode None None None Nooe None None None C·Max None C.Mai •~oo u u u u u u u u FlilshOontwar~csl 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pedes!Iiao Ca1s (#lnr) O O 0 o o O o O ActEffdGreen(s) 18,6 18.6 17.2 17.2 61.1 51.4 61.4 61.6 AclUatedglCRalio 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.43 vie Ratio 0.76 0.26 0.68 0.22 0.54 0.51 0.39 0.76 Co11kolOelay 58,5 3.8 55.7 1.8 24.1 27.3 17.6 33.9 Queue Oclay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tola! Delay 58.5 3.8 55.7 1.8 24.1 27.3 17.5 33.9 LOS E A E A C C 8 C Approach Delay 48.4 45.8 26.9 32.2 Appioach LOS D 0 C C ~ieiriiClfcn suii'lm Aica Type: Other Cycle lenglh: 120 Actuated Cyde lenglh: 120 Offset 101 (8-m), Refere11ool lo phase 2:SBTl ;ind 6:NBTL. Slalt of Green Nalural C)'tla: 85 Conl!ol Type: Actua!ed.COOrdina!~ Ma<imum vie Ra~o: 0.76 lnlerseclion S(goal Delay: 35.2 Intersection LOS: 0 111terseclion Capacity Utilliation 75.9% ICU level of Ser\ice D Analysis Period Cm'n) 15 Syncluo 8 ·Report L<nes. Volumes, Tlm'ngs C-18 't-114 s 611212013
1: Wellborn Road & Holleman Drlve Optioo 6;Tim!ng Plan: PM .,> -+ t (' .,._.. "'-"'\ t I' ~ i ..; ane'GiOU!!---EeL -elff EijRVfeL-WOt-waR 'RaL-"N!IT laJle ConfiguraUons "I tt jf "I tt '(' "I tt1 Ve>:Vme ("Ph) 134 235 83 68 2~9 69 107 613 70 122 934 92 Ideal Flow (l/llllpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage length (ft) 150 100 100 100 150 0 100 0 Storage lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 I 0 Teper lell!)lh (ft) 25 25 00 lami Uti!. Fat!OI 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.985 0.987 FU Protected 0.950 0.950 0,950 0.950 Said. Flow (plot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3486 0 1770 3493 0 flt Permitted 0.4oS 0.591 0.140 0.294 Said. Flow (perm) 756 3539 1583 1101 3539 1583 261 3486 0 548 3493 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 132 132 11 10 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Oist~e (ft) 504 515 .450 373 lraVl!I Tune (s) 9.8 10.0 6.8 5.7 Peak Hou.r FactOI 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 o.eo 0.9-0 Adj. Flow (vph) 149 261 92 76 266 77 119 681 78 136 1038 102 Shated Lane Traffic(%) lane Group Flow (vph) 149 261 92 76 266 77 119 759 0 136 1140 0 Enter B!ociled Jn!mec!ioo No No No No No No No No No No No No Leno A~gnmenl Len left Righi left Len Right Lefi Left Right left Lolf Righi Median Widlh(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Cro~wa!k \'ftdlh(fl) 16 16 16 16 l\'.I) way Lei\ Turn lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tutn!ng Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number ol Detectors l 2 1 1 2 1 t 2 1 2 Oeleclot T emplale left Thru Righi Left Thru Righi Left Thru loft Thru lead:ng Oeteci91 (n) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 Tra:rng OeleclOI (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detectot 1 Position{ft} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 I Delec!OI t Type Ct•Ex Cl•Ex Ch Ex Cl+ Ex Cl+Ex CJtEx Ch Ex Cl•Ex CM:x Cl•Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D)llet!Ol l Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fi) 94 94 94 94 Oetectvc 2 Size(ft) G 6 6 6 Detector 2 T )'Pe CltEx Cf!Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex De!eclor 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend {s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tum Type pn11pt NA Perm p111tpl NA Peril\ pm•pl NA pm•pt NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 1-Perrrilted Phases 8 8 4 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 4 1 6 5 2 l Syncivo 8 • Report I Lanes. Volume$, Timlngs 611212013 i I I C-19
1; Wellborn Road & Holleman Drive
µiii! toop
Sv.ltcll Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
l.iJn lm11m Sp.~! (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Spr;t (%)
Maximum G1een (s)
Ye llowTllll9(S)
All·Redllme (s)
Lost Time Ad;usl (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
lead/lag
lead ·lag Optinfa~?
Ve~le Extension (s)
Reca,Mode
Walk Time (s)
Flash Oont Walk (s)
Pedeslrian Cals (l/,'lu)
Acl Efrct Green (s)
Actuated 9tC Ratio
vie Ratio
Con~ol Delay
Queue Oday
Total Delay
LOS
App<oach Delay
App1oach LOS
n.e1'i(lion SUmm
5.0
11.0
20.0
16.7%
14.5
4.0
1.5
0.0
5.5
l~od
Yes
2.0
None
33.8
0.26
0.47
36 .9
0.0
36 .9
D
AI.ea Type: Other
C)'Cle Lenglh : 120
Aclllated Cyde Length : 120
5.0
22.5
36.0
30.0%
29.5
4.5
2.0
0.0
6.5
Lag
Yes
4.5
None
4.0
12.0
0
22.4
0.19
o.40
44 .9
0.0
44 .9
D
34 .9
c
5,0 4.0
22.5 9.5
36.0 20.0
30.0o/. 16,7;'.
29 .5 14 .5
4.5 4.0
2.0 1.5
o.o 0.0
6.5 5.5
lag Lead
Yes Yes
4.5 2.0
Nona None
4.0
12.0
0
22.4 . 25.7
0.19 0.21
0.23 0.27
3.6 32.6
0.0 0.0
3.6 32.6
A C
13.0 13.0
22.5 22.5
36.0 36 .0
30 .0% 30.0%
29.5 29 .5
4.5 4.5
2.0 w
o.o 0.0
6.5 6.5
leg Lag
Yes Yes
4.5 4.5
None None
4.0 ·4.0
12.0 12.0
0 0
16.5 16.5
0.14 0.14
0.55 0.23
52.2 2.4
0.0 0.0
62.2 2.4
D A
39.5
D
Offset 101 (84%), Relereoced to phase 2:SBTl and 6:NBll , Slail or Green
tla!oral Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum vie Ra llo: 0.67
Intersection Signal Delay: 27.8 Interse ction LOS : C
7.0 10.0
12.5 24.5
14.0 50.0
11 .7% 4.1 .7%
8.5 43.5
4.0 4.5
1.5 2.0
0.0 0.0
5.5 6.5
lead Lag
Yes Yes
2.0 4.5
Nooe C.Max
8.0
10.0
0
68.9 58 .7
0.57 0.49
0.45 0.44
16.4 22.0
0.0 0.0
16.4 22 .0
B C
21.2 c
lnle rsection Capacity UlilizaUon 72 .93 ICU Level of Seivlce C
AnaJy$is Period (min) 15
Synchro 8 • Report
laoos, Volomes, Timings
C-20
Option 6;rl41\!ng Plan : PM
7.0 10.0
12.5 24.5
14.0 50.0
ll.7% 41.7%
8.5 43.5
4J) 4.5
1.5 2.0
0.0 0.0
5.5 6.5
lead Lag
Yes Yes
2.0 4.5
None C-l.lax
8.0
10.0
0
68.2 58.4
0.57 0.49
0.34 0.67
13.3 27,2
0.0 0.0
13.3 27.2.
8 c
25 .7
c
: ~
6112/2013
!-
!
1: Texas Avenue & Ho lleman Drive Exlsling;Tin1ng Plan: AM
,,)--+ .,. 1 +-"-.. fl "\ t ~ l.l \..
(8;"'1& GIO!!J! ESL
lane Conf.gurafons '!'! '!
Volume (vph) 241 40 4 35 26
ldaal flow (vpl\pl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
S!orege Length (h) 140 0 0
Storage lanes 1 1 0
Teper leogU1 (ft) 25 25
lane Ubl. Faclor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Ped BikeF!lClor 0.99 1.00 1.00
Fri 0.850 0.850 0.996
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Sa!d. Flow (piol) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 158 3 0 mo 5051 0 0 1770
Fli Perrr:ned 0.465 0.682 0.304 0.133
Sald . Flow (perm) 1680 1863 1562 12'o9 1863 1583 0 564 5061 0 0 247
Right Turn on R.ed Yes Yes Yes
Said . Flow (RTOR) 155 155 4
Link Speed (mph) 3() 40 40
Uok Ois~oce (ft) 479 465 472
Travel Time (s) 10.9 7,9 8,0
Conn. Peds . (#;'Ill) 4 4 4 Conn. Bikes (~1hr) 1
Peak Hour Fac!or 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) 271 117 11>4 45 83 83 4 188 1562 39 29 38
S~a1ed lane Traffic(%)
l ane Group Flow (vph) 271 117 104 45 83 83 0 192 1601 0 0 61
Enter Blocked lolersection No No No ~lo No No No No No No No No
LeneMgnmenl left left Righl Len l eft Righl RNA Left left Right RNA left
Median Wld lh(ft) 24 24 12
link Offset{fl) 0 0 0
Crosswa t< Widlh(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 9 15
Numbe r o1 OeleclOfs 1 2 I 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
Oete¢tor Ten~.ate left Tliru Right left Thru Right Left le~ Thtu left left
Le a<f;ng Oe!Ector (fl) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 20 20
Tra'fng Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oetectoi 1 Posi6on(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Siie(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 20 6 20 20
Detector 1 Type Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Ch Ex Cl•Ex Ch Ex CltEx Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Ch Ex CllEx
Detector 1 Cha(lflel
Oeleclot 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
!)4fecto11 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deleclor I Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 PosiGon(ft) 94 94 94
Detector 2 Siie(fl) 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex
Detector 2 Channe l
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type pmtpl NA Pe rm pm1pt NA Perm pmtpt pmtpt NA pm•pl r.rn•pt
Syncilro 8 -Report
lanes, VolumEs , Tim'ngs 611217013
C-21