The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5 Venessa Garza 16Venessa Garza From: Robin Macias Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 11 :40 AM To: Cody Mays ; Bridgette George; Venessa Garza Subject: RE : TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE APN's Everything looks good to me! From: Cody Mays Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 7:25 AM To: Bridgette George; Robin Macias; Venessa Garza Subject: RE: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's GEOTRAK routine ran successfully. You may want to spot check some geo records to make sure all looks well this morning. Cody Mays From: Cody Mays Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:05 AM To: Bridgette George ; Robin Macias <Rmacias@ cstx.gov >; Venessa Garza <Vgarza@ cstx .gov> Subject: RE: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's Of course. The change has been made so updates should be reflected in the routine tomorrow. I'll set a reminder to check and make sure all is ok . Cody Mays From: Bridgette George Sent: Monday, August 27 , 2018 5:19 PM To: Cody Mays <CMays@ cstx.gov >; Robin Macias <1m ac i as @ cstx.gov >; Venessa Garza <vgarza(a),cstx.gov > Subject: RE: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE APN's APP R 0 VE D ! AND thanks so mu ch for m aking this work Cody!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, Bridgette (x-3458) From: Cody Mays Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 1:39 PM To: Robin Macias <nnacias@ cstx.gov >; Venessa Garza <vgarza(a),cstx.gov >; Bridgette George Subject: RE : TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's 1 Can I get approval from Bridgette and Venessa? Cody Mays From: Robin Macias Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 1:38 PM To: Cody Mays <CMays@ cstx.gov> Subject: RE: TRAKiT Pa rcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE APN's Cody , Can you please put this script into the LIVE environment. Thank you Address Technician City of College Station 979 -764-3570 From: Cody Mays Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11 :51 AM To: Robin Macias <rm acias @ cstx.gov > Cc: Bridgette George <bgeorge@ cstx.gov>; Venessa Garza <vgar za @ cstx .gov > Subject: RE : TRAKiT Par cels and Addresses , BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's I didn't find any mismatches between ADDRESS SITE APN and it's respective PARENT SITE APN . There were 34 where the PARENT is null, see atta ched . This can be put into the LIVE environment whenever you are ready . Don't need to wait for an update. Cody Mays From: Robin Macias Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 10:58 AM To: Cody Mays <CMays@cstx.gov > Cc: Bridgette George ; Venessa Garza <vgarza@ cstx.gov> Subject: RE: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE APN's Cody, We looked at this is the test environment and everything looks good. Can you run a report from the test environment to show which address APN 's are different from the parcel APN? We wanted to do a little more testi ng . Are you able to put this script i n the live environment or do we have to wait until we get an update? Thanks 2 Robin From: Cody Mays Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:45 PM To: Robin Macias <rmac i as @ cstx.gov >; Bridgette George <bgeo r ge @ cstx.gov >; Venessa Garza <vgarza@ cstx.gov >; Julie Burden <jburden @ cstx.gov >; Brett Blankner <bbl ankn er @ cstx.gov >; Mary Gambardella <m gam bo rd el la@ cstx .gov> Subject: RE: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses , BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE APN's Here is an updated file. I think I messed up the logic on the first one . Cody Mays From: Robin Macias Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:17 PM To: Cody Mays <CMays@ cstx.gov >; Bridgette George ; Venessa Garza <vga r za @ cstx .gov >; Julie Burden <jburd en @ cstx.gov >; Brett Blankner <bbl ankn er (a),cstx.gov >; Mary Gambardella <m ga rnb o rd ell a@ cstx .gov > Subject: RE : TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses , BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's Cody, I am looking at the information and I haven't found any records that are different in the live vs test. Can you point some out to me so I can look at them? Also , the SITE_APN (XREF _ID) never gets updated in site address points . It only gets changed in BCAD parcels . Thanks Robin From: Cody Mays Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:00 PM To: Bridgette George ; Robin Macias <rmac ias @ cstx .gov >; Venessa Garza <vgarza @ cstx.gov >; Julie Burden <jburd en@cs t x.gov >; Brett Blankner <bbl ankn er @cstx.gov >; Mary Gambardella <m ga mb or de lla@ cstx .gov > Subject: RE: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE APN's Did you get a chance to review this at all Venessa? No rush just wanted to make sure you didn't need more info from me . Cody Mays From: Cody Mays Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 9:22 AM To: Bridgette George ; Robin Macias <Rrn ac i as @ cstx .gov >; Venessa Garza <V ga r za @ cstx.gov >; Julie Burden <j bu rd en@ cstx.gov >; Brett Blankner <Bbl ank ner@ cs tx .gov >; Mary Gambardella <m ga mbo rd ella@ cstx.gov > Subject: RE : TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's Ok, scratch the last email. I figured out a way to modify the GEOTRAK update routine in Test . Check the attached records in TEST (how things would change) and compare to LIVE and let me know what you think! 3 Only changes being made in the script: • PARCEL : If the PARENT_XREF _ID in the BCAD _PARCELS table is not the same as the PARENT SITE APN in the TRAKiT table, update the PARENT_SITE _APN in TRAKiT to the PARENT_XXREF _ID in BCAD_PARCELS o Exceptions: Only update the PARENT when the PARENT XREF ID and the CHILD XREF ID do NOT equal each other (that way the parent on a georecord is not itself in TRAKiT) • ADDRESS : If the SITE_APN (XREF _ID) on the Address changes in SITEADDRESSPOINTS , update the PARENT_SITE_APN (PARENT_XREF _ID) in TRAKiT for the address to be the Parcel with the same XREF _ID if it exists • Cleaning up the scripting look and adding many comments to expla i n what each line of code is doing. Cody Mays From: Cody Mays Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 3:31 PM To: Bridgette George <Bgeorge@ cstx.gov >; Robin Macias <Rmacias@ cstx.gov >; Venessa Garza <Vgarza@ cstx.gov >; Julie Burden <jburden @ cstx.gov>; Brett Blankner <Bblank n er@ cstx.gov >; Mary Gambardella <mgambo rd ella@ cstx.gov > Subject: RE : TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses , BCAD Updates, and Subd ivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's Hi everyone, So good news/bad news. Our Test environment has been hijacked by a newer version of TRAKiT that's not entirely compatible with the current LIVE database structure . So in order to properly "test" /"make sure" that the updates I make to the GEOTRAK update routine are correct we will sort of need to do this in LIVE . I can try to modify it in TEST (and will have to eventually before rolling 17. *out in LIVE) to try to get it to run but will look a little different. Let me know your thoughts. Only changes being made in the script : • PARCEL : If the PARENT_XREF _ID in the BCAD _PARCELS table is not the same as the PARENT_SITE_APN in the TRAKiT table, update the PARENT_SITE _APN in TRAKiT to the PARENT_XXREF _ID in BCAD _PARCELS o Exceptions : Only update the PARENT when the PARENT XREF ID and the CHILD XREF ID do NOT equal each other (that way the parent on a georecord is not itself in TRAKiT) • ADDRESS : If the SITE_APN (XREF _ID) on the Address changes in SITEADDRESSPOINTS, update the PARENT_SITE _APN (PARENT_XREF _ID) in TRAKiT for the address to be the Parcel with the same XREF _ID if it exists • Cleaning up the scripting look and adding many comments to explain what each line of code is doing. Update on 7/30 Meeting Background: • XREF ID on Addresses in TRAKiT not updating when they change in BCAD Parcels because the script isn 't telling it to, only when a new address is added. We can change this. Address points are joined on Location ID from TRAKiT DB to G/S DB . • Same w i th Parent XREF_ID for Addr esses in TRAKiT, it will only associate the parent once and then never update it. The parent si te for the Address is always the Parcel w i th the same XREF_ID. • Parcel GEOTYPES currently don 't assoc i ate any parents in TRAKiT through the script. We can do this. Action Items: 4 • • PDS to come back with how they want Address XREF_/Ds to be updated o Associate with new/child XREF_ID from BCAD parcels • PDS to come back with how they want Address Parent (Parcel) XREF_/Ds to be updated o When new/child XREF_ID gets updated, update the parent with the XREF_ID of the new parcel (which is the same XREF_ID as the address) • PDS to come back with how they want Parcel Parent XREF_/Ds to be updated o TBD-meeting with BCAD to discuss retiring XREF_/Ds Cody Mays -----Original Appointment----- From: Bridgette George Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 11 :44 AM To: Bridgette George; Robin Macias; Venessa Garza; Julie Burden; Cody Mays; Brett Blankner; Mary Gambardella Subject: TRAKiT Parcels and Addresses, BCAD Updates, and Subdivided Properties and all of the related SITE AP N's When: Monday, July 30, 2018 3 :00 PM -4:30 PM (UTC -06 :00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: City Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room 1 Good morning! Below is some information regarding what we'll be discussing. I've schedule the room for two hours , but I'm certain we won 't be in there that long! We're trying to figure out why the address and parcel below have "different" APN 's (549 Hayes Ln), while other parcels and related addresses have the "same" APN (1 221 0 White Rock Rd, etc.). NOTE : when a final plat is filed at the courthouse , we immediately put addresses in TRAKiT (all linked to the original parcel ID that subdivides). When we receive the BCAD update , we delete all of our parcels and upload everything back in, including new parcels from the subdivision. We 're trying to see if there is a way to replace the old Site APN on the addresses , with the new Site APN 's from BCAD. The parcel isn't linked to the address and doesn 't show it, but the address is linked to another parcel with the same APN??! Multiple addresses with the same Site APN. Thanks , Bridgette (x -3458) 5 Venessa Garza From: James Smith Sent: To: Thursday, April 4, 2019 11 :22 AM Venessa Garza Subject: RE : Greens Prair ie Widening Project Venessa, Sorry yes I wa s working on getting that to but kept getting pulled off to do other things . So the re are 3 optio ns as we discussed . a. Keep the shared use paths at the 5' offset and only widen out to avoid power poles . This would lead to large amounts of excavation to cut into the berms and possibly utility reloca tes of gas, water, or telecom that are in their own easements (all depending on their depths). Generally 5' offset and will have to swing around power poles, etc. so the offset in these short areas would be 5-15' b. Mainta in the existing paths that avoid the berms and place new path in a similar fashion that avoid cut/fill and utility conflicts in other areas . This would have the least amount of conflicts but it does increase offset to the back of curb and may be perceived as too far from the road. The existing path genera lly ranges from 32 -65' offset (1200 LF). Proposed walks on top of the berms, where there are not walks now, fall about 25' offset (3200 LF). Then generally speaking for the rest of the north side we can keep a 5-15' offset (6200 LF). c. Keep offsets minimized and ride up and down the berms to reduce cut and utility impacts. Generally 5-30 ' offset to get it to ride the berm . So say 5-15' for 6200 LF and 20-30' fo r 4400 LF . The path would come back to the roadway at all intersections. See the below l ink for v ideo of driving the corridor. Gives a good idea of the "berms" on the north side of the roadway, north of the power po les. Also shows the existing cast le gate 2 path curve in and out of these berms as well. P:\Capital Projects\Greens Prairie Trail\ Westbound Forward Faci ng .mp4 Th is is just to give general guidance as they develop the 30 %. Once 30% is submitted we can modify if there are issues with how they have laid it out. Let me know your thoughts . Thanks! James Smith, PE Project Manager-Public Works Phone : 979-764 -3877 From: Venessa Garza Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:43 PM To: James Smith <jsmith@cstx.gov> Subject: Greens Prairie Widening Project Hey -Following up on your call last week about the alignment of the path in relation to the berms in front of Castlegate 11. Were you were going to send me an email that you had received from Brinkley & Barfield so I could review and respond? 1 I : I I I I I I I I ! I I l I I I I I I ! I I l ' I ,.., .- ' -v ':J ~I ' . f 'T I ( c. I'. : .... 1 ~ 7 -1 I ... ' ;; L , . ... "' -. P, r · f. ~ --I 7 / r ,.. I > ' i l .n _, 4 " ~ ' ·2 ,,~ t ' -· . -, ( . .. f ;, { . ' ,. '7 'I ~· -' v 1: ') ..... • c ,...,._ t . 1 t, I ,_, ( , ...... ' I-,., •' . ·? l ) ~ --~ . I ~ I ..{ ~ ...;- (' I. ~ .. ~ . . '\ "", " r . I I J :...c.. .r..i 1 ;· .... ~ -, -i- " _i -I . ) c . . -1· ... / ' t. ii ~ . '/ -7' .. ~ ) , -I -, . - r ! . ·- '--· l . " ) .., ' ~ . -) .J • ' - ( . ·- i •' -, '( f / -· . I ~ }. l .. I I ( . : . ~ .--,-:: " 0 ·-. .... ( ..; .. 't, .1 ' ! ' ., -..u:; -r: rJ • I -t ~ ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I l I I - Venessa Garza From: Emily Fisher Sent: To: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:57 PM Venessa Garza ; Jame s Sm ith Subject: RE : Greens Prairie Public Meeting Follow -up Hi Venessa, Based on the feedback from the meeti ng, we are proceeding with a shared use path on both sides of the road (where possib le ). The feedback consisted of 11 votes for Option A (SUP) and 3 for Option B (bike lanes). We also had several comments regarding the shared use path o n both sides. The r e were also 5 comment cards left with no op in ion on the cross section. We wil l definitely send you the first submitta l of p lans when we receive them. Thanks, Emi ly From: Venessa Garza Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:35 PM To: Emily Fishe r <efisher@cstx.gov>; James Smith <jsmith@cstx.gov> Subject: Gree ns Prairie Public Meeting Follow-up He y -Can I get an update on next steps after the Gr eens Prairie Road Public Meeting? I'd like to be i nvolved in the disc ussion and r eview of the plans especially if the design is going to change to a shared use path . Thanks!! Venessa Garza, AICP Sen io r Program Ma n ager Bicy cle, Pedest ria n & Greenways Pr ogram Planni ng and Devel opment Serv ices Department Mailing Address : P.O . BOX 9960, College Station , Texa s 778 4 2 Physical Address : 1101 Texa s Avenue Office 979 -764 -3 674 I Fax 979 -764-3496 IT'H 'II : C <X1J ;1, T;n Jo)': 1i-efr--~111.,.,.."'f" 1 Type Tanks & Know-it-Alls . . "9 " Wet Blankets SuperAgreeable Charmers • • .____, Clams and lndecisives '<. ? .~ Dealing with Difii~ult People Surprise Effect Ideas What they do & Why s1"'''1':; i IM -r en{e,c,-h OV\. l fk ·1 V\tii-o~e0~ v-e. . What you should NOT do ~t ~(\ r ~ b/ftv'v{L( ~~ lA.A 1 l ~I ou lt-- Uvl& ~i hL, ~ &-- WDh · Surprise Effect Ideas -4V J ~iu..~l~j-f c;J-1__ t+t.-A--vt 1+1 <, ' -A~l~cl0<-~ ~VU-~i ho-f cL ~ ft c .. h1l~"'1f11bl . oJllf'vv~ sll~~ ~ l1'lv' I ~ ~ 6'-"- ~ f --(l-c fhA ~ \.V"{A(.S PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPO ~ -. t - . 'fl~~ - Prepared by Transportation Engineering Analysts McClure & Browne Engine~ring/Surveying, Inc. July 2013 Transportation Engineering Analysts Joseph D. Blaschke, D. Eng., P.E ., President TX Firm Reg ist ration No. F-126 • 1008 Woodcree k Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 • e-mail: jblaschk •@ver izon .ne! 979/693-5800 • Fax : 979/693-5870 City of College Station A TfN: Mr. Troy Rother City Traffic Engineer P . 0 . Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 July 3, 2013 RE: Roadway Improvement Options, Intersection of Texlls Avenue a11d Holleman Drive Project STJ 310 Dear Mr. Rother: 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 Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive and recommendations for implementation of those options. As indicated in the report, there are numerous viable options for consideration. There is little doubt that the most cost-effective options are making more efficient usage of Holleman Drive west of the intersection by removing the raised median west of the intersection that is pe1mitting left turns into and out of the Target shopping center and extending the southbound Texas Avenue right-turn lane no11hward to provide additional storage for right-turning vehicles. Both improvements are relatively inexpensive but effective. Widening both the east and west sides of the intersection will require considerable funds, but the increased capacity associated with the widening will 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. Respectfully submitted, ~/ JDB/sb cc: Casey Rhodes Specializing in: Trame Engineeri ng Roadway Design Accident Analysis Roadway Improvement Options Intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive College Station, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... . II. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ . Gene ral Observations .................................................................................... . Genera l Im provement Suggestions .............................................................. .. Optio n s ........................................................................................................ .. Cost-Effectiveness Cons iderations ................................................................ . Ill. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... . APPENDIX A-FIGURES ..................................................................................... . Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3 . F igu re 4 . F igure 5 . Figu re 6. Aerial View of Intersectio n ........................................................ . Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 1 ....................... . Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 2 ....................... . Proposed Roadway Improvements for Opt ion 2A ................... .. Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 3 ....................... . Proposed Roadway Improvements for Option 4 ...................... .. APPENDIX B -TABLES ..................................................................................... . Table I. Peak-Period Turning Movement Counts ................................. .. Tab le II. Estimated Costs for Option Number 1 ...................................... . T ab le Ill. Estimated Costs for Option Number 2 .................................... .. Tab le IV. Estimated Costs for Opt ion Number 2A .................................. .. Tab le V . Estimated Costs for Opt ion Number 3 ...................................... . Table VI. Estimated Costs for Opt ion Number 4 ..................................... .. Table VII. Level-of -Service Criteria for Signalized In tersections .............. .. Table VIII. Delay Savings Compa risons ................................................. .. APPENDIX C -SYNCHRO 8 RESULTS ............................................................ .. 1 3 3 4 5 6 9 A A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A -6 8 8 -1 B-2 8 -3 B-4 B -5 8-6 B-7 8-8 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 Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive, an intersection of two arterial streets located approximately 0 .60 mile south of the campus of Texas A&M University. The purpose of the analysis was to develop realist ic options for improvements to the intersection that would result in improved operational efficiency and increased operational capacity. While recognizing 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. An aerial view of the intersection is shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A of this report. The traffic signals operate with protected/permissive phasing on all approaches. Because of the extremely high traffic volumes using the intersection, the primary focus of the analysis was to determine options to i ncrease capacity at the intersection, primarily with improvements to Holleman Drive. Currently, both Texas Avenue approaches to the intersection have three through lanes, and r i ght-turns are permitted from the outside through lanes. The southbound approach has a separate right-turn lane which allows "free" right turns when a vehicle reaches a point about 100 feet north of the intersection. Both Texas Avenue approaches have separate left-turn lanes. The southbound left-turn lane has about 400 feet of turn storage and the northbound left-turn lane has about 350 feet of storage. The west side of Holleman Drive is about 56 feet in width and has one westbound lane. Approximately 350 feet west of the intersection, a westbound left-turn lane is provided adjacent to the westbound through lane to provide an opportunity for a left-turn movement into the Target shopping center, located south of Holleman Drive and west of Texas Avenue . At this location, left turns from the Target shopping center onto westbound Holleman Drive also 1 r I are permitted . The west si de of the intersection has four eastbound lanes, two reserved for left turns, one for through movements, and one for r ight-turns only. Storage for the dual left-turn lanes is affected by the raised island on Holleman Drive that prov ides the opportunity to turn left into and out of the Target shopping center. The east side of Holleman Drive is about SS feet in width near the intersect ion . This side of the intersection has a sing le wide eastbound lane, and three westbound lanes consisting of a left-turn lane, a through lan e, and a right-turn lane . The right -turn lane has a ve r y short storage space of about 50 feet. 2 II. ANALYSIS Turning movement counts were made at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive on February 27, 2013 . These counts we r e made during the mornin g-, noon - and even ing-peak periods . The results of the counts are shown in Table I in Appendix B of this report. The evening-peak period was the most active . The evening peak-hour volume (combination of all four approaches) was 4,949 during that peak period (5:00-6 :00 p.m .). In comparison, 2,926 vehicles entered the intersection during the morning-peak hour {7 :30 to 8:30 a.m .), and 3,960 vehicles entered the intersection during the noon-peak hour (noon to 1:00 p.m.). The southbound Texas Avenue approach had the h ighest number of vehicles entering the in t ersection d uring the evening-peak hour with 45.9 percent of the tota l. A further breakdown of evening-peak hour volumes are shown below: Texas Northbound: u {7)-0.5% {1,479-29.9%) Left {185) -12.5% Thru {1,192) -80.6% Right {95)-6.4% Texas Southbound : u (124) 5.4% (2,273 -45.9%) Left (159) -7.0% Thru (1,719) -75.6% Right (271) -12.0% Holleman Eastbound: Left (236) -35.3% (668 -13.5%) Thru (268)-40 .1% Right (164)-24.6% Holleman Westbound: Left (186} -35.1% (529-10.7%) Thru (241}-45 .6% Right (102) -19.3% General Observations There we r e two surprising results from the turning movement counts . The high percent of left turns on both Holleman Drive approaches was greater than expected. Also, the high number of U-turns from the southbound Texas Avenue approach , coupled with the number of left-turns from the same approach, indicated a substantial amount of activ ity in the southbound Texas Avenue left-turn lane . 3 The following were general observations of traffic flow conditions at the intersection: 1. Texas Avenue traffic flow was good with little delay . There was no congestion associated with through movements on Texas Avenue. The only congestion on Texas Avenue was associated with U-turn and l eft-turn movements on the southbound app roach . Queues formed in the southbound left-turn lane and did not clear efficiently. The U-turning vehicles affected the efficiency of the left-turn movements from the same lane. Also, because the U-turns were relatively high in number, the U- turning vehicles were interfering with westbound vehicles making right turns on red. 2. The westbound Holleman Drive traffic typically cleared the intersection without much backup. 3. The eastbound Holleman Drive traffic did not clear the intersection with any efficiency and was the main area of congestion. Vehicle queues were common. Traffic in the dual left-turn lanes consistently queued and blocked those eastbound vehicles making thro ugh or right-turns at the intersection . There was inefficient use of space west of the intersect ion. 4. Pedestrians and bicyclists were very rare. General Improvement Suggestions Based on the turning movement counts made at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Dr ive, the following general suggestions relative to roadway improvements were developed: 1. Intersection efficiency can be improved by adding lanes on Holleman Drive to separate traffic. 2. Some operational improvements can be accomplished without acquiring right-of-way. More significant improvements can be made by acquiring right-of-way. 3. More efficient removal of southbound Texas Avenue right -turning vehicles will increase efficiency of through traffic movements. 4. Elimi nation of access via left-turns into and out of the Target shopping center along Holleman Drive would provide more efficient traffic flow on Holleman Drive west of the intersection . 4 r Options After reviewing the existing conditions at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive and considering the existing traffic volumes using the intersection, the following roadway improvement options were considered for more detailed analysis. 1. Option 1 -Reconfigure the eastbound Holleman Drive approach to extend the storage length for the dual-left turn lanes and separate the left-turning vehicles from the vehicles making through and right-turning movements. This improvement requires removal of the existing raised island west of the intersection which permits left-turning movements into and from the Target shopping center. No right-of-way will be needed with this improvement and the cost is m.inimal. The primary advantages with this improvement is greater left-turn storage and reduction in delay to other eastbound motorists. The primary disadvantage is the removal of access via left turns into or from the Target shopping center. Figure 2 illustrates this proposed improvement which will provide additional storage space for eastbound left-turning vehicles. As shown in Table 11, the estimated cost for this improvement is $55,391. Because it is such a small construction project, the start-up costs would be a high percentage of the total project. 2. Option 2 -Add a right-turn lane on the westbound Holleman Drive approach with an acceleration lane on Texas Avenue. This improvement will provide a greater separation of right-turning vehicles from through traffic on the westbound Holleman Drive approach. However, because the number of right turns on this approach is not substantial, there will be little return on the investment. Figure 3 illustrates this proposed improvement, the main advantage of which is to provide additional storage space for westbound right-turning vehicles. As shown in Table Ill, the estimated cost for this improvement is $247,584. 3. Option 2A -Add a right-turn lane on the westbound Holleman Drive approach without an acceleration l ane on Texas Avenue. This improvement also will provide a greater separation of right-turning vehicles from through traffic, but at a lower cost because no additional work will be done on Texas Avenue. However, because the number of right turns on this approach is not substantial, there still remains the problem of little return on the investment. Figure 4 illustrates this proposed improvement, the main advantage of which is to provide additional storage space for westbound right-turning veh icles. As shown in Table IV, the estimated cost for this improvement is $187,364 . 4 . Option 3 -Make substantial changes to both the east and west sides of Holleman Drive. The east side of the intersection will be widened to six lanes, two eastbound lanes and four westbound lanes. The westbound lanes would consist of a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The west side of the intersection will be widened to seven lanes, two westbound lanes and five eastbound lanes . The eastbound 5 - lanes would consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Some limitations to the length of the westbound right-turn lane may be influenced by the new construction of a Sno-Cone building on the north side of Holleman Drive east of the i ntersection. On the west side of the intersection, the outside westbound lane wou ld be dropped at an entrance to an HEB parking lot. Figure 5 illustrates this proposed improvement which will provide substantial operational improvements to the intersection. As shown in Table V, the estimated cost for this improvement is $1,084,800. s. Option 4 -Extend the length of the southbound Texas Avenue right-turn lane another 250 feet north of the intersection. This improvement will make more efficient use of the r ight-turn lane and remove right-turning vehicles from the through vehicles resulting in an overall improvement to the intersection's operation. Figure 6 illustrates this proposed improvement which will expedite the southbound right-turn i ng movements. As shown in Table VI, the estimated cost for this improvement is $126,212. 6. Option 5 -Add an additional turn lane on southbound Texas Avenue so that dual left- turn l anes can be provided, one for U-turns, and one for left-turns. This option may be diffic ult to construct due to the existing cross-section of Texas Avenue (especially within the median area) and the difficulty of adding a lane in the middle of the roadway. Also, the manner of separating the left-turns from the U-turns will be difficult to implement. Therefore, while this may be a possible option, it is not considered to be a viable option for this study. An estimate of the cost for this option was not prepared . Cost-Effectiveness Considerations After considering these five viable options, the next logical step is to provide some type of cost-effect iveness 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 leve l-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 6 delay. As traffic flow cond itions become "worse," the values of the LOS change from A to B to C and so on to F. Table VII is a chart from the Highway Capacity Manual that provides a comparison of LOS levels A through F. As indicated in the chart, an intersectio n can have a LOS C or D within a range of average vehicle de lay 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 levels . 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 Tab le VIII, the viable options disc ussed above were shown to provide improved operations, as expected. Some options were more effective than others. The delay values shown in Table VIII r epresent the average delay PER VEHICLE entering the intersection during the even ing -peak period, which was the time of day having the greatest volume of traffi c. The annual delay saving s shown in the table represent the savings associated with reduced delay for a year, only fo r those vehicles using the intersection during the weekday evening peak periods . Obviously, additional delay savings will be recognized during other t i me peri ods when traffic flow is significant, but for the purposes of making comparisons, the delay savings were associated only for weekday evening-peak periods . Hence, the "years to payoff" actua ll y would be shorter in real ity . The va l ues shown i n the "yea rs to payoff" co l umn are for comparative purposes only. The results of the analysis was inconclusive relative to Option Number 1. The software program was not able to perform the analysis associated with the reduced delay associated with t he reconfiguration of the west side of the intersection . Hence, it is not possible to determ i ne the efficiency of the i mprovement with SYNCHRO 8. However, there is l ittle doubt that the removal of the raised island across from the Target shopping center will result in a more efficient use of space, mo r e storage for eastbound left-turning vehicles, and less conflicts 7 with vehicles traveling in the vicinity of the island. Given the relatively inexpensive cost of the project, the r e is little doubt that the operational improvement will be cost-effective. As shown in Table VIII, Option 2 (or 2A), the construction of a separate right-turn lane on the westbound Holleman Drive approach to the intersection, is not cost-effective. From an operational viewpoint, constructing the westbound right-turn lane with or without an acceleration lane on Texas Avenue is simply not justified independent of other construction at the intersection. On the other hand, implementation of Option 3, widening both the east and west sides of the intersection, will result in significant reduction in vehicle delay at the intersection. The payback period is a little long, but the improvements are justified . This is the only option that will provide a LOS Cat the intersection. It is remarkable to see the significant improvement in the intersection's operation with Option 4, the construction of a right-turn lane extension on southbound Texas Avenue. With a relatively minor cost of construction, the extension of the right-turn lane will reduce overall vehicular delay by nine percent, and resulting in a payback period of less than three years. In essence, all of the viable Options provide operational improvements and the costs associated with any Option eventually would be paid back in time. Obviously, the most effective Options are those which have the most significant delay savings. 8 Ill. CONCLUSIONS As a result of the conduct of this operational improvement study of the Intersection of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive, the following conclusions are made. L As a minimum, the City of College Station should remove the existing island on the west side of the intersection to make maximum use of available pavement . The modification will create some restrictions to movement into and out of the Target shopping center, but the overall operational benefit will offset those restrictions. While the reduction in vehicle delay could not be determined with the use of SYNCHRO 8 software, there is little doubt that vehicular delay will be reduced . No right-of-way acquisition is needed to implement this option. Hence, Option 1 is justified. 2. If the City is willing to obtain additional right-of-way, ma j or changes to the intersection should be considered . With significant widening on both the east and west sides of the intersection on Holleman Drive, operational capacity increases substantially and vehicular flow on Texas Avenue also benefits because Holleman Drive traffic can clear the intersection more quickly, thus providing more "green time" for Texas Avenue . If two through lanes are provided on both sides of Texas Avenue on Holleman Drive, this would result in maximum efficiency. Hence, implementation of Option 3 is justified. 3. There is little doubt that the implementation of Option 4 is strongly encouraged . Construction of an extens ion of the right-turn lane on the southbound Texas Avenue approach to the intersection provides substantial operational improvement with minimal costs. 4. Implementation of Options 2 or 2A alone is not wa r ranted. 5. Implementation of Options 1 and 4 collectively provides considerable operational improvements with minimal costs. Implementation of Option 3 as well affords maximum operational improvements to the intersection. g APPENDIX A-FIGURES A Figure 1. Aerial View of Intersection A -1 APPENDIX B -TABLES B Morning Po:ik t.fOUf Count~ AM Poak: 1~9;00 nm s.c..th~l'ld SttWtTlrn• ......,. '-"' -"""" """'""' : 6 " 11 7:ir>w • • .. 22 1:30.W: • • 1l3 10 7~6~ . 11 "'" >,1 ""'""' • '" 110 •• llt1$-.a.t • • ,., •• lt:JON>A • ,. ,., ,,. 8;45/IM • '" 1Cl:l 37 Mkt-d~ PHk Hour Cotintt Mld~lly'P•ol< 11:31M:J0 Teas AYO &.HoUe'fNW'IOr. °"" =-· 11~ --Sb<itt'T~ .,...... ..... -R""' 11!XIN.f 2!I ,. "" .., 11:4SAM 11 ,. 200 30 12:<l0f!!M ,. ., ""° Oil 1 ~1 ~PM "" .. ,,, .. 1~:10Pt.C Zl .. ... ,. 12:A5FM IS ,. ""' "" 1:00PM " " m '° 1 :-H~PM 11 <2 '°" "' Ev(lolng Pf;5c; Hour Countt l'MP .. k .t:Oo.&00""' T'..nA'Wt&Mofl•rMnDr. DQto lr.712013 Stoo\,..,.. 111.1)!) ............. stmnme u .... , .. lMI """' ........ 29 .. m ,, .c:1!1PM :20 Cl .. , 112 4;30Pl'A :11 "° ""' "" <l:.CSPM ,. :rr :rr• ao "°""" .. ... .... C7 ~~PM. ,. 42 .,, M 6•30PM "' "" ...., >O ::t:t~PM 30 .. 449 $0 TABLE I. PEAK-PERIOD TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS February 27, 20 13 -Of-"31odbyt..T.&R w ......... Northbound .... ..... """"' Left -...... """' Ill>«> ... ... Ulft ThN R .... ..... ,,..., U•tl.1TI Q n Q • 11 12 0 0 •O 14 ,., 2 Q 0 0 • 0 c ' ,, "' 0 0 • .., 241 . • 0 0 • 0 0 • "" 21 0 0 2 ... .,, • 0 1T 0 • 0 • ,. ,. 1a 0 0 1 •• ,,. 1 • • • 0 0 n 1 ,. ,. 0 0 0 & "" " 0 0 • ' 0 0 13 22 ,. 0 • • "' ,"70 10 2 0 • ' 0 0 • 21 2!I 1 0 ' 30 >n • 0 • 0 , 0 0 11 ,. :t< 1 0 , 21 JOll " l 0 0 w .......... ·--IMl<s ..,...,, L<fi --"""' .... ...... L.e!\ -""'"' .... "' ... .,._ : 0 0 .. l3 11 0 0 0 •• 295 ,, • 0 0 , 0 0 "' ,., 11 1 1 1 .. 200 n 0 • 0 0 Q 0 .. .. .. 1 0 • 21 201 13 l 0 0 0 0 0 .. .. .. 1 0 1 31 .,, 21 0 • 0 0 0 0 3ll 3ll n 0 0 1 "" ,.. 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 l7 '3 11 0 0 1 "' 1115 11 1 • 0 0 0 0 .. >T ,, 0 0 • "' >n •• 0 D 0 0 0 0 ,. 30 .. ,, 0 0 30 1CO n , 0 0 -N..,,_,,., ~· e~ .. IJ•twn ..... .,,,., ·-.... -"""" Ulft Triru l """' ..... ""• """" 3 0 0 3' •• '" 0 0 0 "' ,.. ... 2l • • 0 , 0 0 .. •• 20 0 0 1 "' """ 31 , IL 0 D • 0 .. "" " 2 0 • ..., """ i ,. • IT 0 D • 0 .. •• 20 2 • • 40 , .. :ti 2 0 0 1 • 0 .. "' .27 • 0 1 "" 201 11 0 IT 0 1 0 0 .. 72 ,. • 1f • "' :l21> '7 2 0 0 2 • 0 •• .. 2 1 , 0 1 .. ""' ~ 3 0 • 1 0 0 •$ •• ,. • 0 0 • ""' 3' ' 0 Q B-1 """"°""" ... TJV\I .... .. -e~ .. ... ,, 10 • n .. 3T. 1A "' "" • 1 0 73 37 15 0 0 .. ,,, "' 0 0 ri1 2'1 l3 0 c ,.,, 2" ,. 1 0 .. .., 10 2 0 '3 10 • 2 0 ,,_...,. ..... -R ... .... -.. " "' • 0 00 .. ,, • • .. ,. ,, 0 0 70 "' 3' 0 0 "' ., "" 1 0 ,, ., "" 0 0 "" •• 13 2 • 70 .. 21 • o. _ ....... .... """ ....... .... ...... "" "" ., 0 0 .. •• ., 2 0 .. •• . .,. t • llO '~ :ti t 0 "" .. .. 2 0 .. 71 ., 3 0 .. .. •• • 0 <f1 "" l3 • • TABLEU ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Hollem an Drive and Texas Avenue Option #1 MBESI PROJ #: 1063-0032 June 24, 2013 lrcm li' I Description Unit I Quantity Uni t Price Total Site Preparation I Mobili zation (includes constr. Staking) L.S. 1.0 $1 ,500 .00 $7,500 .00 2 Traffic Control Plan L .S. 1.0 $5,000 .00 S5,000 .00 3 Removal and Dis~sal ofExi stin_g Asphalt Pavement and Base S.Y. 250 $25 .00 SG,250 .00 4 Removal end DisPOsal of Ex istinl!. Concrete Pa,·ement S.Y. I $10.00 SI0.00 5 Re.moval and Di"""sal of E.xist ing Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F . I SlO .O~ SIO.OO .... 6· Removal of_ Ex isting Stri ping L.S. ... 1 Sl,000.00 Sl.000.00 7 Traffic Sjjl!!als L.S. 0 SUS,000.00 S0 .00 ·8 ~Vork Zone Striping L.S. 0 56,75 0.00 S0.00 -S0 .00 9 Work Zone Strioin2 Removal L.S , 0 $2,500.00 Site Preparation Subtotal $19,770 P11Ying Construction 10 Earthwork (approx 2500 CY Embankment) L.S. 0 $45,000.00 S0.00 II 8" Stabilized Subwade S.Y. 0 S6 .17 S0 .00 12 J8" Cru..<hed Limestone Base S.Y. 0 Sl5.00 $0 .00 lJlconcrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 0 $12 .00 S0.00 -14 One Co~ Surface Treatment Seal Coat (OCST) S.Y. 0 $2 .50 S0 .00 .... 15 2" HMAC Surface Course Ty C (including erime coat , full 1\idth) S.Y. 0 $8 .05 S0.00 16 6" HMACSurface Course , Ty B (including prime coat) S.Y. 0 S20.70 S0.00 ... l7 6" .Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y. 250 $75.00 Sl&,750.00 18 4 • Concrete Sidewalk S.Y . 0 S<l.00 so.oo· ... 19 Sidewal k Ramps EA 0 S7 50.00 S0.00 20 Pavement Markings & siimage L .S. l S l,25 0.00 Sl,250.00 Pa\fog Subtotal $20,000 Erosion Control Construction 21 Erosion Control Plan & Sed imentat ionConlr<JJ (per Item 106) L.S . 1 SJ,500.00 $3,500.00 22 Fwnishing and Placeme n.t ofTopsoil (4 ") S.Y. 0.00 S0 .50 S0.00 23 Silt Fence L.F. 400 $3 .50 Sl,400.00 24 Grass Seeding {includes watering) S.Y. 0 suo S0 .00 ErOSton Control Subtotal I S4,900 Total Construction Cost S44,670 Engineering/Sun·e)ing (12%) SS,360 Geotech Testing (2%) S893 Coutlngcncy (10°""Yo~)t----S4,467 Total Project Cost SSS,391. B-2 TABLE III ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Holleman Drive and Texas Avenue Option #2 MBESI PROJ #: 1063-0032 June 24, 2013 ltcm#l Description Unit Quantiiy Unit Pri ce To tal Site Preparation l Mobilization (includes constr. Staking) L.S . ······-LO S22 ,500.00 $22,500.00 2 Traffic Control Plan L .S. --LO s15,oo:i.oo ! Sl5,000.00 3 Removal and Di swsal of Exist irnz Pavement S.Y. 818 $25 .00 1 $20,~50.00 4 Removal and Disnosal of Existin2 Concre te Pa"ement S.Y. 0 SI0.00 S0.00 5 Removal and Disoosal of Exist in2 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 0 SI0.00 S0 .00 6 Removal ofE:<istinsz Strioing L.S. l Sl,000.00 St,000.00 7 Traffic Signals LS. l I S70,000.00 $70,000.00 8 Wo rk Zone Striping LS. I $6,750.00 $6,750.00 9 Work Zone Stripin.g Removal L.S. --l $2,500.00 $2 S00 .00 10 Acquire ROW !NE corner of TexaslHolleman) L .S. 1 SI 00,000.00 s 100 ,000.00 Site Preparation Subtotal! $138,200 Paving Construction 10 Earthwork (approx 500 CY Embankme nt/Excavation) L.S . 1 $12 ,500.00 $12 ,500.00 II 8' Stabilized Sub2rade S.Y. 518 SI0.00 $5,l~-~~ --i2 8' Crushed Limeston.e Base S.Y. 0 $15.00 S0 .00 ··--13 Coocret e Curb and Gutter L.F. 0 Sl2.00 So .oo .. 14 One Course Surface Treatment. Seal Coat COCSTl S:¥. 0 $2.50 S0.00 15 2" HMAC Surface Course Ty C (i ncluding prime coat , full \\idth) S.Y. 0 $8.05 S0.00 .... _!§__ &._". HMAC Surface Com~. Ty B (including prime coat) S.Y. 0 $20.70 S0.00 17 6" Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y. 300 $15 .00 $22 500.00 1 8-4" Concrete Side11alk S.Y. 2,846 S5 .00 $14 ,230.00 19 Sidewalk Ramps EA 1 $900.00 $900.00 20 Pa,·emcnt 'Mark ings & Slgruure L .S. l. Sl ,250.00 SI,250.00 Paving Subtotal S56,564 Ernsio n Control Construction 21 Erosion Control Plan&. Sedimentation Control (per Item I 06l L.S. I S3 ,50Cl .OO $3 ,500 .00 22-Fwnishing and Placement ofTopsoil (4 ") S.Y. 0.00 $0 .50 S0.00 23 Silt Fence L.F. 400 $3.50 $1,400.00 24 Grass Seeding (incl udes watering) S.Y. 0 $1.50 S0 .00 Erosi on Control Subtotal $4,900 Total Construction Cost 5199,664 ~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!--~-'-'--'-'--~ Enghteering/Surre}ing (12%) 523,960 Geotech Testing (2%) 53,993 Contingency (10%) 519,966 T otal Project Cosr·j 5247 584 B-3 TABLE IV ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Holleman Drive and Texas Avenue Option #2A l\1BESI PROJ #: 1063-0032 June 24, 2013 Jtcm # I Description Unit Quantily Uni.tPci cc I Site Preparation l Mol:>ili.talion (includes constr. Staking) L.S. 1.0 $17,500.00 2 Traffic Control Plan. L.S . LO $7,500.00 --·-Removal and DisDO~L of.Existing Pavemeni .. ·-S.Y. -·----~--3 $25.00 4 Removal and Dispasal of Existing Concrete Pavement S.Y. 0 Sl0.00 5 Removal and Disposal of Existing Concrete Curb an(r Guttcr. ··~·· L.F. 0 SJ0.00 6 Re~val of Existing Strip£n_g ___ L.S. i I 5·1.000.00 7 Traffic Signals L.S. I S70,000.00 ----cs ~-8 Work Zone Strioinl!. I $6,150.00 -··· 9 Work Zone Strioing Removal ·--Y" 10 Acaui.re ROW (NE comer of Texas/Holleman) Paving Construclion 10 Earthwork (app rox 500 CY Einbank.ment/EJit_a vat ion) 11 8" Stabilized Su birrade 12 8" Crnshed Lime stone Base 13 Concrete Curb ·and Gutter 14 Qhe Course Surface Treat11~_11t Seal Coa l (OCST) .. 15 2· t{MAC Surface C~~· Tv C (includin~ ~rime coat, full widlh} ·······- 16 ~· HMAC Surface Course, T~ B (including 2rime coat) ~--·h.· 17 6" Reinforced Concrete Pavement ---18 4" Concrete Sideirnlk 19 Side1~11lk Ramps ·······-····· 20 Pavement Markings & Siima l!e Erosion Control Cons truction _2_1_ ~~ion Control Plan & Sedimentation Control (~r Item 106) _B_ f urnishing and Placement ofTopsoil ('.!_J_ __ . -· 23 Sil! Fenc e --24--Grass Seedin2 I includes waterin2) L.S . 1 $·2,500 .00 L.S. J SIO(J ,000.00 Site Preparation Subtotal I L.S . J Sl2,500 .00 S.Y. 225 Sl0.00 S.Y. 0 Sl5.00 LF. 0 Sl2.00 l S.;-r ·-0 -s2.so · S.Y. 0 $8 .05 S.Y. 0 520.70 S.Y. 190 575 ,00 S:Y. 1,120 S5 .00 EA 1 .S90 D.OO L.S. 1 $95.0.00 Paving Subtotal L.S. ll S3_,500.00 S.Y. 0.00 1 SO.SO ·-L.F. 4001 S3 .50 S.Y. OI Sl.50 Ero sion Control Subtotal I Total Construction Cost Engineerlng/Sun·e}ing (12%). Geotech Testing (2%) Contingency {10%) Total Project Cost I Total Sl7,500.00 $7. 500.00 $4 ,500 .00 S0 .00 SO .DO Sl,000.00 S70 ;0.00.0Q $6,750 .00 $2,500.00 s !00,000 .00 $109,750 $12,500.00 $2 ;250.00 SO .DO S0 .00 SO .DO SO .OD SO .OD S]4,25Ctoo $5 ,600 .00 S900 .00 $950.00 $36,450 $3,500.00 -·--so .oo Sl,400,00 . S0 .00 $4,900 S151,IOQ_ Sl8,132 $3,022_ $15,110 $187,364 B-4 TABLEV ENGINEER'S OPINfON OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Holleman Drive and TexasAvc,nuc Option #3 MBESI PROJ #: 1063-0032 June 24, 2013 11.m11 I Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Site Preparation I Mobiliza tion (includes constr. Staking) L.S . 1.0 522,500.00 2 Traflic Control Plan L.S. 1.0 525 ,000 .00 3 Removal.~ Disoosal of Existine. Pavement S.Y. 2,350 $25 .00 _4 ___ Removal and Di~sal ofExistimz Concrete Pavement S.Y. 0 $10.00 5 Removal and Di<n<>sal ofExistine. Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 0 SI0.00 6 Removal offaisting Striping ---·-·····--·· L.S . 1 $2,500.00 7 Traffi c Si211als L.S. I $200 000 .00 8 Work Zone Strioirnr L.S. 1 $7,500.00 9 Work Zone Strii:Jin2 Removal L.S . I $2,500.00 10 Retainin2 Wall (alon2 shoo~. center n.~rkiM lot (ill SE Comer) L .F. 285 Sl25 .00 lJ Relocate Tel~p~£~e fin e L.S . I $25,000~00 12 Revise varkine. lot at NW comer near bank buildin• L.S. I $35 ,000.00 13 Acquire ROW (NE comer ofTexas'Holleman), (SW Comer of Texas/Holleman) and rNW corn er of Texas/Holleman) L.S. I s 150 ,000.00 Site Pre~ration Subtotal Paving Construction 10 Earthwork <aoorox. 500 CY Embmikment/E xcavat ion l L.S. I 520,000J!9 11 8" Stabiliz~~-~~gT!lde S.Y. 3,602 Sl0.00 12 8' Crushed Limestone Base S.Y. 0 Sl5.00 13 Concrete Cu:rb and Gutte r L.F. 0 Sl2.00 I 14 One Course Surface Trcatmeni Seal Coat (OCSTl S.Y. 0 ·-52 .50 ! 15 2' HMAC Surface Course. Ty C (includ ing orime coat , full. width) S.Y. 0 Sl2.00 16 6' HMAC Surfac.e Course, Ty B (includin~ orime coat) S.Y. 0 $20.70 1.7 g• Reinforced Concrete Pavement S.Y . 2,715 $65.00 18 4 • Concrete Sidewalk S.F. 10,288 1 55 .00 19 Sidewalk RamDS EA l!T S.90 0 .0 0 20 Pa\•ement Markings & Sie.nage. L.S. l I SJ ,75 0.00 P:\\ing Subtotal Erosion Control Construction 21 Erosion Control Plan & Sedimentation Control fr.e r item I 0..6.l ··-I L.S. 1 SJ,500.00 ··----·· 22 Fumishine. and Placement ofToosoil (4 'l I S.Y . 1,200.00 S0.50 ·-23 Silt Fen<:e I L.F. 2,000 53.50 -24 Grass Seed in!! (inc ludes waterin 2) I SY. 1,200 51.50 Erosion Control Subtot al Total Construction Cost Engineering/Surveying (12%) Geotech Testing (2%) Contingency (10%) Totnl Prnjecl Cost! Total 522,500 .00 525,000 .00 $58,744 .44 S0 .00 S0 .00 $2,500.00 S200,000.00 $7,500.00 S2 500.00 $35,625.00 S25 000 .00 $35,000 .00 SI 50,000 .00 5564,369 520,000 .00 $36,018 .89- 50.00 S0 .00 S0 .00 S0 .00 S0.00 SI 76,460 .56 $51,44 0.00 $9,900.00 S3 ,750 .00 $297,569 S3 ,500.00 S.600 .00 S.7,000 .00 Sl,800.00 512,900 $874,839 Sto4,981 Sl7,497 S87,484 Sl,08~1 800 B-5 TABLE VI ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTIO N COSTS Holleman Drive an d Tex.as Avenu e Option #4 MBESI PROJ #: l063-0032 June 24, 2013 lt em ll I Descri ption Unit Qu an tity Un ii Pri ce I Tot al Site Preparntion l Mobilizat ion (includ es co nst r. Sta ki ng) LS. I 1.0 S7,5 00 .00 $7,500.00 •.. I 2 Traffic Control Plan L.S. 1.0 $5 000.00 $5,0 00.00 --------·~·· 3 Remo val and Dispasal of Existing Asphalt Pa vement and Base S.Y. I S25 .00 I S25 .00 4 Remova l and Di~~I of Exi sting_ Concrete Pavement S.Y. 354 Sl.0 .00 S3 ,540.00 __ ,. __ 5 !Remo val and pj<;f)()sal _efExist ing Concrete Curb_and. Gtttter L.F. 380 S!0.00 $3 ,800 .00 -·-6 Remo val of Exi sting Stri ping L.S. 0 SI 000.00 SO.OD -""' SO.O<f 7 Traffi c Si~ls L.S . 0 $125 ,000.00 + ~cguire ROW /Adj ust HEB tar wash drive lane L.S, l S25,000 .DO s 2foo o.oo Work Zo ne Strio imt L.S. D $6 ,750.DO S0.00 10 --· -~-··"" L.S. 0 $2,500 .DO -·· S0.00 Work Zone Strio in2 Remo v11 I Site Preparation Su btot al I $44,86 5 Paving Construction _!_!__ §rthwork (a22rox 2500 CY ~mbankmen t) L.S. 0 $45,00:J .ODl S0 .00 12 s• Stabilized Subgmde S.Y. 0 $6 .17 ! so .oo 13 8" Crush ed Limestone Base -~~-S.Y. 0 ······-···-· SIS .OD ' S0 .00 14 Concre te Curb and Gutter L.F. 0 $12 .00 so:oo ··--····· 15 One Course Slllface Treaime nl' Sea l Coat ~OCS:!J s::Y:· 0 $2 .50 SO .OD 16 2· HMA C Slllface Course, Tv C (incl ~ajf ng prime co.1t , full "i d ~IY. S.Y. ·--Oj SS.05 S0.00 17 6" f JM_AC Surface Course , Ty B (incl udin g crime coat) S.Y. Oi $20.70 S0.0 0 _l_B_l6" Reinfo rced CohCret e Pave ment ··---•"Y'"" ···-·· S.Y. 54 5 S7 5.00 $40,875 .00 19 !4" Conc rete Sidewa lk S.F. 2,286 S4.00 $9,144 .00 ··-20 Sidewal k Ramps EA I $75 0.00 $750.00 21 Pavement Markings &. Si2032e L.S. I Sl.2 50 .00 Sl ,25 0.00 Paving Su btotal $52,019 Erosion Control Construction ~~-_J Ero~i on Control Plan&. Sedime ntation Control {~r liem.10 6) -·· L.S . l ... filt~ ---~-00.00 _ _±LJf urnish!!ig and Placemeni ofToQro il (4") --S.Y. 0.00 S0.50 so.oo 24 [Silff ence L.F. 400 $3 .50 Sl ,400 .00 25 iGrass Seedi ng.(includcs watering) S.Y. 0 Sl.50 S0.00 Erosi on Con irol Sub1 otal $4,900 Total Constructioit Cost SlOl,784 -------------------__________ E_1~1g,__iueerlng/Surve)'ilig (12%) S12,214 _G_·e_o_tr_ch_._t_c_stl_·n~g~(~2_'l'<~· )-+--·······-··S2,036 Contingency (10%) Si0,178 Total Prnject Cost! S126,212 B-6 TABLE VII. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Control Delay per Vehicle Level of Service (SecNeh) A ::;10 B >10-20 c >20-35 D >35-55 E >55-80 F >80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, Exhibit 16 -2 B-7 Option Existi nQ 1 2 2A 3 4 TABLE VIII. DELAY SAVINGS COMPARISONS INTERSECTION OF TEXAS AVENUE AND HOLLEMAN DRIVE Annual Delay Construction Delay (Sec) LOS Savings Costs 41.0 D ---- ----? $55,391 40.9 D $297 247,584 40.9 D 297 187,364 34 .5 c 62 ,105 1 ,084 ,800 37.3 D 44,821 126,212 8-8 Years to Payoff -- ? 834.6 630 .9 17.5 2 .8 APPENDIX C-RESULTS OF SYNCHRO 8 ANALYSIS c 1: Texas Avent1e & Holleman Drive Existng;fur,!ng Plan: AM i ,.! aneG m lane~cn f;gvralions ttt• VQ!ume (\.ph} 5S3 9S Ideal Flow (Vp/lpl) 1900 1900 Sloiage lengl/l (ft) 0 Storage lanes 0 Teper Lenglh (ft) lane U(I. F aclor 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike fector 0.99 Fri 0.978 FltPtotecled Sa!d. Flow (pro!) 4948 0 i AtPer!riUed i¥ Satd. Flow {perf!l} 4948 0 ~h!Turn on Red Yes Said , Flow (RTOR) 41 l.Jnk Speed (mpll} 40 llnk Distance (It) 740 Ttavel Tune (s) 12.6 Conl. Peds. (llibr) 4 Conn. Bikes (#hlr) Peal\ Houf Factor 0.89 089 /\dJ. Flow (~h) 621 107 Shared Lene Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow {Vp/l) 728 0 Enter Blocked lnlersecllon No No lane Afgomenl Len Right Median Widlh{ft) 12 Urik Olfse~n) 0 Crosswa!lc \'fJdlh(ft) 16 Two way Left Turn lal\e l Headway F aclor 1.00 1.00 I TlllJliig Speed (mph) ll l Number of Oeleclors 2 Deleclo r Template Thm leadilljj Deleclor {Q) 100 Ttaifing Oeteclol {ft) 0 I Detecto r 1 Po!iliori (f\) 0 Detecto r 1 Size(fl) 6 Detector 1 Type Ch Ex I Detecto r 1 Channel Oeleclol 1 E>;tend {s) 0.0 Peteclor 1 Ouale (s) 0.0 Oe!ecior 1 Delay (s) o.o Peteclor 2 i'>osltion(lt) 94 Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 peteelo r 2 Type Cl!Ex Oeteclor 2 Channel De!eclo r 2 Extend (s) 0.0 Tom Type NA Synd110 8 · Report lanes, Volumes, Timings 6112/2013 r I C-1 Synchro 8 • Report l aMs, Volumes, Timings 6/1212013 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive eneOrou Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase S1'.iich Phase Minimum lnit'al (s) Mntmum Sp!it(s) fot3l Split (sj .. Total Split(¥>) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All·Red nme (s) lost limo M,iust (s) Total lost Tlme (s) Leadllag Lead-lag Op(irJze? Veh:.Cle Exlens'on (s) Rec~IMode Walk Time (s) Flasli Pool Wal.~ (s) Ped esllian cais (flillr) Aot Effcl Green (s) Actuated glC Ra No vlcRatiO Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS (nte1mticn Synchlo 8-Report lanes, Volumes, Tim'ngs 2 2 15.0 21.0 66.0 55.0% 61.0 4.0 1.b 0.0 5.0 lag Ye~ 2.0 C.Max M 12.0 0 68 .1 0.57 0.26 13.4 o:o 13.4 B 14.3 B EXisUng;Timi rQ Plan : A"li 611212013 C-3 1: Texas Ave nue & Holleman Drive Exisfing;Timing Plan : OP .,> _., t -(" +-' fl "'\ t !' IJ. ".. aneGrou ESL NBl NBT Lane COnf:guration$ "l"'I "I -ttt+ "I Vo!ume (vph) 317 7 114 1221 78 '85 149 Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1900 mi-0 1900 iooo 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 140 330 0 400 Slorage lanes 1 1 0 1 Taper length (ft) 25 25 25 L~ne Ubl Factor 0,97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 Ped Biko F aGlot 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.991 Flt Prolected 0,950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. ffo·.·i (prnt) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 0 mo 5032 0 0 mo Fl t Permilled 0.375 0.470 0.095 0.182 Satd. Flow (perm) 1353 1863 1559 873 1883 1557 0 177 6032 0 0 339 Righi Tom on Red Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 169 16~ 12 Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 479 465 472 Travel Time (s) 10.9 7.9 8.0 ConO. Peds . (llllir) 3 2 eoon. &:ke$ (#1111) 1 Peak Hour Fa.clot 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.118 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 M8 0.98 Adj , Flow (vph) 323 161 102 HO 160 78 7 116 1246 80 87 152 Shated lan e Tralf.c (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 16 1 102 140 160 78 0 123 1326 0 0 239 En ter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No l~o No lane Afignmenl Lefi Left Righi Left left Right RNA Left Left Right RNA Left Media n W!dlh(ft) 24 24 12 Link Olfse t(tt) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Widlh(R) 16 16 16 T1\\) 1·~ Left Turn l 31\e 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 Turnin g Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 Number or OelectOIS 1 2 t 1 2 I 1 1 2 1 1 De tector Template left Thru Righi Left Thru Right Left left Thru Left left leading Detectoi {ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 20 20 Trairng DetectOl (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !>elector 1 Posltion (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 10 20 6 20 20 De tectOl 1 Typ9 Cl+Ex CJ!Ex Ch Ex Cl•Ex Cl+Ex Cl•Ex Cl+ Ex Cl•Ex Ch Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Oelecto1 1 Channel Detec!or 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 O.Q 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 0.0 Detecior 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 M 0.0 Oe tedor 2 Position(n) 94 94 94 Oo~cclor 2 Size(fl) 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type C!+Ex Cl+ Ex CH Ex Detecl01 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm•pt NA Pc1m pmtpt NA Perm pm•pt pm+pl NA pm•pl pm•pl Synchro 8 • Repotl lan es, Volume s, l im'.ngs 611212013 C-4 1; Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Exlsting;Tining Plan : OP i ..; L$eGrou SB.R lane~onfigurafons Volume (vph) 192 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 S!orag~ Lengl/l (ft) 0 Storage Laoes 0 Taper LEnglh (ft) lane Ub1. Faclor 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor Fil 0.979 flt Protecled Satd. Flow (pro!) 4979 0 fllPe1m:1ted Satd. Flow .(perm) 4979 0 Rillht Tum on Red Yes Said. flow (RTOR) 37 Un~Speed (mph) 40 link Dis!ance (fi) 740 Travel rlllJ& (s) 12.6 Conn . Peds. (#/hr) Conn. Bikes (#/hr) Pea\ HOIJI Factor 0.98 0.98 Adj . Flow (vph) 1214 196 Shared Lane Traffic (Y.) Lane Group Flow (vph) . 1410 0 Enter Blocked lnlersecllcn No No lane Alignment Leif Rlghl Median Widlh(ft) 12 link Olfset(O) 0 Crossvtafil Widlh(fl) 16 Two way left Turn lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Delee tors 2 Deteetor Tempfa!e Thtu tecding Oetetloc (ft) 100 Trailing Delectoc (ft) 0 Oelecloc 1 Po~ilion(ft) 0 DeteclOl 1 Siie(ft) 6 De!eclol 1 Type Cl•Ex Oeleclor I Channel Oetec\or 1 Extend '(s) 0.0 Oetecloc 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Oelecloc 2 Positlon(ft) 94 Detecioc 2 Size(ft) 6 Delector 2 Type Cl•Ex De!eclor 2 Chamel Delectoi 2·Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type NA Synclvo 8 • Report Lenes, Volumes. Tim'ngs 611212013 C-5 1: Texas Aven ue & Ho lleman Drive .-> _,. t f .,._ -'... fl an&GIOUI! ><,! EB . Bi m Protected Phas~s 3 8 4 Permitted Phas es 8 8 4 Detector Ph3se 3 8 8 4 Sv.ltch Phase lhnfmum Initial (s) 5.0 5.Q 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 M1nllll\Jm "Split (s) 10.0 32.0 32.0 10.0 31.0 31.0 10.0 TotalSplii(s) 18.Q 18.0 18,0 18,0 18.0 18 .0 18.0 Total Spllt (%) 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% Maxim\Jm Green (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13,0 13.0 13.0 Ye=ow Tune (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 M 'Reallijle(S) 1.0 t.O 1.0 1.0 j ,O 1.0 1.0 lost T1111e Ad)11st (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o:o 0.0 Tola! lost Tim e (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 ·s:o 5.0 6.0 Le adllag Lead Lag leg l ead Lag Lag lead Lead-Lag Optlfu!ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye s Yes Vehkle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ReG<ltlM<xle None None Non e None None None None Walk Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 flash Dool w* (s) 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 Pedestrian Ca,s (#;'hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effc( Green (s) 25.1 13.2 13.2 22.8 1Z.O 12.0 Aciuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.1 1 0.11 vie Ra tio 0.60 ·0.72 0.30 0.52 0.79 0.24 Contcol Delay 37.8 65.6 2.9 39.3 73 .8 !.S Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOi a! Delay 37.8 65 .6 2.9 39 .3 73.8 1.8 LOS 0 E A D E A Approath Oe!ay 39.3 46 .2 Apptoach LOS 0 0 n ersection urniff Area Type: O'Jmr Cyc!e leng th : 110 l\Ctuated Cycle Ltngth: 110 Offse~ 25 (23%), Refe renad lo phase 2:SSTL end 6:NSTL , Start of Green Natural Cyi:le: 80 Control Type : Actualed·Coord :oa!ed Maximum vrc Rati6! 0.79 Intersection Signal ()j!lay: 27.3 Intersection Capacity Uli:ilaUon 73.1% Analysis Peli-Od (min) 15 Synthio 8 ·Report Lanes. Volume s. Things Intersection LOS: C ICU level of Se rvice D C-6 Exfs~ng;Timlng Plan : OP '\ t I' (j \. 5 5 2 2 6 5 5 5.0 15.o 5.0 5.o 10.0 24 .0 10.0 10.0 18.0 5{0 20.0 20:0 16.4% 49.1% 18.2% 18.2% 13.0 49.0 15.0 15.0 4.6 4.0 (O 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 t.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 .. 0 5.6 5.0 Lead Lead lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 None C·M<!~ None None 4.0 15,0 0 ~1.0 51.0 57.0 0.46 0.46 0.52 0.58 o.sj 0 .. 65 30.3 22.8 ~0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 22.8 40.3 c c D 23 .4 c 611212013 1.: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive P(ot.ected l'hases Permitted Phases DeieclO( Pha5e SVJlch Phase t,\i!lmmi tnilial (s) MinWnlJm Sp£t (s} To1 a!spijt (s) Tole! Sp!il (%) Mi!X!mum Green (s) Ye.~·1 Time (s) All·Red Time (s) lost Time Adjust (s) Total losl Trne (s) Le1ldJleg le'l'fLag Oplinlile? Vehicle Extension (s) Recaff Mode Walk Time (s) Fla!h Dool WaJ'r. (s) Pedeslrlan Calls (#,•11) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated glC Ratio v:cRatio Conttol Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Los Approach Del~ Approach LOS liiifilectloo Siimmary ., Synchro 6 • Report lanes , Volumes, T1m'ngs 2 15.0 21 .0 56.0 50.9% 51 .0 0 1.0 0.0 5,0 Lag Yes 2.0 C·Max 4.0 12.0 0 57.0 0.52 O.S4 18.9 b.o 18.9 B 22.0 c Existing;Titdog Plai : OP J 611212013 C-7 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Exlsling ;Tirring Plen : PM ,,,>-_., " "" +-' fl ~ f I' ~ ~ ena OU Lane Coofigura~oos t 'I 'I V~umo (\'Ph) 241 7 185 95 124 159 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1eoo 1900 1900 1900 1000 1900 Storage leng:h (ft) 330 0 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 Teper lenglh (ft) 25 25 Lane Ubl. Facior 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 Ped Bilt e Faclor 0.98 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.989 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 o.950 0.950 Sa.Id. Flow(pcot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 0 1770 5010 0 1170 Flt Permitted 0.343 0.172 0,070 0.111 Said . Flow (perm) 1237 1863 1544 318 1863 1556 0 130 50!0 0 0 207 Righ!Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 171 101 12 Lll1k Speed (mph) 30 40 40 Link Olslance (ft) 479 465 472 Trave!Time (s) 10.9 7.9 8.0 Coon . Peds. (lllhr) 2 9 9 2 5 9 9 eonn. Bikes (#Au) 1 1 Peak Hour Feelor 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.9$ 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 096 Adj. Flow (\'Ph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 7 193 1242 99 129 166 Sh<11ed lane Trame (o/o) Lene Group Flow (vph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 0 200 1341 0 0 295 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No lane Al:gnment left lei! Right Left Lelt Right RNA left Len Right RttA left Med ian \Vidth(ft) 24 24 12 Link Olfset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wtdlh(ft) 16 16 16 Tv.1:> ylfly left Torn 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 Numbel of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Detector Template Le rt 1hru Righi Left Thru Right Left Left Thru Len Left leading Detector (fi) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 20 20 T ra:Jing De tector (R) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Pcsition(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oe!eclor 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 20 6 20 20 De tector 1 Type CltEx Cit Ex Cl+Ex Cl•Ex Ch Ex Cl+ Ex Ct+Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl+ Ex Ct•Ex Dete ctor 1 ChaMel De!etlor 1 E~end (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue {s) o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 !nlector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 beteclor 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 Oelecio r 2 Type Cl+ Ex Cit Ex Cf!Ex Oeteelor 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm•pt NA Perm pm•pl NA Perm pm•pl pm•pl NA pm•pl pm•pt Synchro 8 -Report Lene$, Vokinies. Timings 611212013 C-8 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Eidsling;f1min~ Plan : PM + ,.! ane r s S R Laoe,onligurafion s Hf.t Volume (vph) 1719 271 Ideal Flo\'/ (vphpQ 1900 1900 Storage le!19lh (ft) 0 Storage lanes 0 T ~ptr Length (ft) Lene UH. Facloi o.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 Frt 0.980 flt Protected Said. Flow (p;ol) 4957 0 Fil Peonitted Said. Flow (perm) 4957 0 ~I TIKn on Red Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 27 UIJk Speed (mph) 40 Link Distance (fl) 740 Travel Tme (s) 12.6 Cooft. Peds. (#1hr) 5 toiift. Bikes (#1hr) Peak Holll Factor 0.96 0.96 Adj . Flow (vph) 1791 282 Shaied Lana Traffic (%) laoe Group Flow (vph) 2073 0 Enter Blocked lntersecliOO No No l~e Afignmenl left Righi Median Widlh(ft) 12 l ink Otfset(ft) 0 Crosswdlk WJdlh{ft) 16 Two way lelt Tum l011e Headway F~tor 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors 2 Detector Template Thru Leading Detector (11) 100 Tr ailing Dateclot (ft) 0 Detector 1 Position[ft) 0 Oelector 1 Size(ft) 6 Detector 1 Type Cf•Ex Oetecloi 1 Cheooel Oeleclot 1 Extend (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Dete1:tor 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Oe:eclol 2 Position(ft) 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 Detector 2 Type Cit Ex Detector 2 Channel belector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Type NA Sync liro 8 • Report Lanes, Volumes. Timings 6/12/2013 C-9 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive .,.> ...... ~ f ._ '- re®'"(;1 e E l Protected Phases 3 7 1 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 6 Oillector Phase 3 8 8 7 4 4 Svhtch Phase Minimooi lniual (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.iolrnum Sptt (s) 10.0 32.0 32.0 10.0 31 .0 31 .0 10.0 To!al Split (S) 20.0 29.0 29.0 20.0 29:0 29.0 24.0 TotelSplit(o/.) 15.4% 22.3o/, 22.3Y. 15.4'~ 22.3% 22.3% 18.5% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 24.0 24 ,0 15.0 2.4 .0 24.0 19.0 Yefow Tune($) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al~Re<l llme (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Tlme Miust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 o:o o:o 0.0 Total lost Time (s) 5.0 5,0 5.0 s.o 6.0 5.0 l ead/leg lead la9 lag lead la9 Lag lead lead ·le9 Opti 1TJze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ve h.'c!e Exten sion (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recalll.ode None None None None None None None \'/alk Time (s) . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Flash Oonl Wall; (s) 23.0 23 .0 2:>.0 22.0 Pedestrian Cals (#1hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 33.4 22,0 22.0 38.5 24 .6 24 .6 Actua ted glC Ratio 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.19 0,19 vie Ratio 0.48 0.69 0.42 0.78 0.71 0.28 Conttol Delay 35.8 81 .1 9.9 55 .5 61 .2 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Tolal ~lay 35.8 81.1 9.9 55.5 61.2 11.1 LOS D F A E E B Approach Delay 47 .6 49.6 Approach LOS 0 D lii lerucf.on Summ /veaType: Olher Cycle length : 130 Actva led Cycle length : 130 Olfsel: 16 {12%), Re!erenced to phaso 2:SBTt. and 6:N BTl, start of Green Nalural Cycle: 90 Conltol T)-pe: Aclualed ·Coordfnaled Ma>.imum vie Ra!io: 0.90 lnterseclJon Signal Delay: 41 .0 ln le rs~lion Capacity l,Jli:izalion 93 .2% Analysls PeriOO (njn) 15 Synctvo 8 • RepM lanes, Vol ume s, Timings lntersedlon LOS : D ICU Le vel of Service F C-1 0 Existing ;Tf!ring Plan: PM '\ t !' i; ~ I 6 5 5 6 2 2 1 6 5 5 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 2-1.0 10.0 10.0 2'1 .0 57.0 24 .0 24.0 18.5% 43.8% 18.5% 18.6% 19.0 52.0 19.0 19.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Lead lag Lea:! lead Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 None C·Max None None 4.0 15.0 0 71.1 56.8 76.9 0.55 0.44 0.59 0.80 0.61 0.90 54 .9 30.3 56.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.9 30.3 56.8 D c E 33.5 c 611212013 1.: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Ptolecled Phases Permilled Phases D&leclor Phase 2 Sv.ltcll Phase t,Mlmum lnilial (s) 15.0 t.foimutn Split (s) 21.0 Total Spit (s) 57.0 Total Spit(r.) 43.8% tkxiniooi Green (s) 52.0 YelowT1111&(s) 4.0 M·REd Time (s) 1.0 lost Tims Adjust (s) 0.0 Total lost Time (s) 5.0 Lead/tag leg Lead·Lag Oplwnize? Yes Veh.'cle Extension (s) 2.0 Recall Mode C·Max Walk lime (s) 4.0 Flash Donl Walk (s) 12.0 Pedestrian C2h (#itir) 0 Act Eflct Green (s) 59.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 vie Rafo 0.90 Conlfol Delay 39.8 Queue Delay 0.0 T olal Delay 39.8 LOS D Approach Cklay 41 .9 APPloachLOS D nlerse Synchro 8 ·Report lanes, Volumes, Tlmmgs Ex!sting;liming Plan: PM 6112/2013 C-11 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 1;lmng Plan : PM ~ -~ f +-'-fl ~ t ~ IJ \. ne OU Lane ConfiguraliQos Volume (vph) 1 95 124 Ideal Flovt (vpllpl) 1900 1900 1900 Storage l!)ngUI (ft) 0 Storage lMC$ 0 laper length (ft) lalle Uhl Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Faclor 0.98 0.98 1.00 Fri 0.850 0.850 0.989 Fil Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 S~td. Flow {p!ol) ~33 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 0 1770 5010 0 0 1770 Flt Perni!ted 0.343 0.172 0.o7 0 0.111 Satd. ~low (perm) 1237 1863 1544 318 1863 1558 0 130 5010 0 0 207 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd , Flow {RTOR) 171 101 12 Link Speed (mph) 39 40 40 lrlk Oistaoce r) 479 465 472 Travel rime (s 10.9 7.9 8.0 Cool Peds. (#1hr) 2 9 9 2 5 9 9 Conft . Bl<es (#.'lir) 1 1 Peak Hour Factor o.so 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.06 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. F)ow (vph) 24~ 279 171 194 251 106 7 193 1242 99 129 166 Sha1ed lane 11aff;c (~) lane Group FloW(vph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 0 200 1341 0 0 295 Enter Blocked lnlersectlon No No No No No No No No No No No No ume Afgnmen\ left left Right left Len Right RNA left left Right RNA Left Median Wtdlh(ft) 24 24 12 lll'lk Olfset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk \V'tdlh(ft) 16 16 16 Two 1·~ le~ Turn lane Headlvay Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOO Tl.lining Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Oelector l emplate lEfi Thni Right left lhru Rig Ill le it Len Thru lefl left leading Detector (fl) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 20 20 Tra'1'09 Oetec!or (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oetec!or t Posltioo(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oeleclof 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 20 6 20 20 Detector 1 Type Ch Ex Cltfx Ch Ex CltE.x Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cit Ex CltEx Ch Ex Cit Ex Oeleclor 1 Channel Oe :ector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oeleclor 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 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 Positioo(fi) 94 e4 g4 Detector 2 Size(O) 6 6 6 beleclor 2 Type Cf*Ex CltE~ Cl•Ex Oe!ector 2 Channel Detector 2 E~end (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 T\Jln Type pmlpl tiA Perm pm•pl NA Pe1m poHpl pm•pl NA pmtpl pm•pl Synchro 8 -Repo1t lanes. Volumes, Tirnlogs 6112/2013 C-12 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Oplion 1 ;lim'ng Plan : PM ~ .I llr\8 IOU~ SBT BR lane,onfiguiatioos ttt• Volume (vph) 1719 271 Ideal Flow (vpl)pl) 1900 1900 Storage Length {ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper l~nglh (ft) lans Ubl F acloi 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 Frt 0.980 flt Prolected Said . Flow (pro!) 4957 0 FltPerrrit led Sald. Flow (pe rm) 4957 0 Righi Tum on Red Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 27 Unk Speed (mph) 40 llnk Distance (ft) 740 Travel Tlllle (s) 12.6 Con n. Peds. (#1111) 5 Conn . Bikes (liihr) Pea~ HoUI Facloi 0.96 0.96 Adj . Flow (vph) 179 1 282 Shaied lane Tralfic (%) Le ne Giovp Flow (vph) 2073 0 Enter Blociled Intersection No Nil l ane Alignment left R9J;t Med ian \\'ldlh(ft) 12 Uni< Otlset(ft) 0 Cro..~\·r.i!k W:dlh{ft) 16 Tl'.1:1 way left Turo Lane Headway Factoi 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Dalectors 2 Detector Template Thru leading De~or (II) 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 De:eclor I PositiQn(R) 0 Dele clor I Size(ft) 6 Oe tecloi 1 Type Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel o.i!eclor 1 Extend (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Queue {s) 0.0 Dete ctor 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 Oetector 2 Type Cl•Ex Oaleclor 2 Channel Detec tot 2 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type NA Synchro 8 ·Report lanes, Volumes , Tlm'ngs 61 1212013 C-13 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 1;Tllll'fl9 Plan: PM ,,)-_,. t .(" ._ ' fl ~ t /"" I.I \. aneGioJJ2 E EO Ell'R NBL Ni'.lT Ptolected Phsses 3 8 1 6 5 5 Peimitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 2 Detector Phas& 3 8 8 4 1 6 6 5 Sv.itdl Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Spn (s) 10.0 32 .0 32 .0 10.0 31.0 31 .0 10.0 10.0 24 .0 10.0 10.0 Tot al Spfll (s) 20.0 29.0 29.0 20.0 29.0 29.0 24 .0 24.0 57.0 24 .0 24 .0 Total Split ('It) 15.4% 22 .3% 22.3% 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% 18.5% 18.5% 43.6% 18.5% 18.5% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 24 .0 -24 .0 15.0 24.0 24 .0 19.0 19.0 52 .0 19.0 19.0 YdowTl!lle (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 All ·Red Time (s) 1.0 1.o 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 M 1 .. 0 1.0 lost Time AOJIJSI (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 s.o 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 lead/lag Le ad lag lag lead lag lag Lead Lead lag Lead Lead Lead·Lag Optimize? Ye s Yes Yes Yes '(GS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VehJ~le Ex1enslon (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None C-Max None None Wall!. Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23 .0 22.0 22.0 15.0 Pedeslri311 Ca'ls (#/h r) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Eire! Green (s) 3M 22.0 22.0 38.5 24 .6 24.6 71.1 56.8 76 .9 At-lualed g/C Ratio 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.55 M4 0.59 vie Ra tio OA8 0.89 0.42 0.78 0.71 0.28 0.80 0.61 0.90 Conlfol Delay 35.8 .81.1 9.9 55.5 61.2 11.1 54 .9 30.3 56.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tot e!Oelay 35.8 81.1 9.9 55.5 61.2 11 .1 54 .9 30 .3 66.8 LOS 0 F A E E B 0 c E Apptoach Delay 47.6 49.6 33 .5 App roach LOS 0 D c lliferse<:lion Siimm~ Area Type: Other Cyclo length : 130 Actoated C)'C le Length : 130 Ollset 16 {12%), Refe re,ited to pha!e 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL. Start of Gre en Na tural C)'Cle: 90 Con~ol Type : Aclua!ed·Coo rcfna fed Maximum vie Ratio : 0.90 lnle rseclion Signal Delay: 41 .0 lnlersecUon LOS: 0 lnleiseclion Capacity U ~liza~ 93 .2% ICU Level of Se~ F Ana}fsls Period (m!n) 15 S ?ifs and Phases: 1: Texa' Aven ue & Hcl!eman Drive 1101 Hs ~OS Syncll ro 8 • R6porl lanes, Volume s, Timlng s 6/12l20 13 C-14 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive P1otected Phases Perml!led Phases Deteclor Phase 2 sv/.1,h P'nase Mloim\Jm Initial (s) 15.0 Miniroom Split (s) 21.0 total Spilt (s) 57.0 Total Split(~) 43.8% Maximum Green (s) 52.0 YeilowTme (s) 4.0 AlfRed Tune (s) 1.0 losl Time Ad;usl (s) o.o 1olal lost Tune (s) 5.0 lead/l.ag lag Lead-leg Opfmize? Yes Veh'de Extension (s) 2.0 RecaU Mode C-Max Walk Time (s) 4.0 Fl~h Oont Walk {s) 12.0 Pedeslrlao C2'ls {llllu) 0 Act Effcl Green (s) 59.8 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0.46 vie Ratio 0.90 CQ!llrol Delay 39.8 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 39 .8 LOS 0 Approach Delay 41.9 Appioadl LOS 0 o!elsec ,on St1mma Synctvo 8 ·Report lanes, Vo!urnes, Timi ngs Option 1;Tim'ng Plati: PM 611212013 C-15 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 2;Tvring Plan: PM "" _., ~ .( +-"-. f1 '4\ t /"" ~ \. ane GrOUi · B TI Lene Ccnfigura ~oos 'i t " ttf> 'i vo:ume (vph) 186 241 7 185 1192 95 124 159 Ideal Flov1(vphpi} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Lell!)lh (~) 0 330 0 400 Storage Looes I 1 0 1 i Taper Length (fi) 25 25 25 I Lene Utl Fact01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 t.00 I Ped Bi:<e Factor 0.98 0,99 0.98 1.00 Fri 0.850 0.850 0.939 Fil Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said . Flow (pro!) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 0 1770 5010 0 0 1770 FftPerm'.Ued 0.343 0.172 0.070 0.111 Said. Flow (perm) 1237 1863 1544 318 1863 1558 0 130 5010 0 0 207 RiWit Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd . flow (RTOR) 171 106 12 I link Speed (mph) 30 40 40 l ink Distance (ft) 479 465 472 I Travel Time (s) .10,9 7.9 8.0 Con6. Peds. (C1hr) 2 9 9 2 5 g 9 C<inft. Bi"kes (#Ai r) 1 1 Peak Hour Faclo1 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,g6 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 7 193 1242 99 129 166 Shaied Lane Tralfc (%) lane Group Flow(vpli) 246 279 171 194 251 106 0 200 1341 0 0 295 Enter Blocked ln1ErSec6oo No No No No No No No No No No No No lane Afgnment Left Len Rlght Lefl Left Righi RNA Left Left Rlght RNA Left Median Width{ft) 24 24 12 link Olfset(ft) 0 0 0 Cromr.i!k WidU1(lt) 16 16 16 Tvio way Left Turri Lane Headway Fi!Clor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turnin g Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 Numbe r ol Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Righ t Left Lei\ Thru lell left leading Delect01 (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 20 20 ,.. Trai 'ng Detect« (k) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Detector I Posillon(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 De!ecl¢r 1 Size(h) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 20 6 20 20 Deteclor f Type Ch Ex Ch Ex Ci t Ex Cit Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl+Ex Dete clol I Channel Dete ctor 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 9.0 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 0.0 De tector 2 Pos\Uon(ft) 94 94 94 Oetect01 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 De tector 2 Type Cit Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turo T\1>8 pm•pt NA Perm pm•pt NA Pe rm pm+pt pm•pt NA pm•pt pm+pt Synchto 8 -Report Lenes , Volumes, 11rnlngs 6112/2013 C-16 1: Texas Avenue &. Holleman Drive Option 2;Tim'.tig Plan : PM i .,/ e rou SB SfR Lene~t1gura6ons ttt• Volume (vµh) 1719 2?1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 ~tor119e Length (ft) 0 St0<age lanes 0 Taper Leng!h (ft) Lane Ubl. Fatlot 0.91 0.91 l>ed s· eF2ct-0r 0.99 Frt 0.980 flt Protected Satd . Flow (plot) 4957 0 flt Peroilled Said . Flow (perm) 4957 0 R'ght Turn on Red Yes Sold . Flow (RTOR) 27 Uok Speed (mph) 40 link Distance (ft) 576 Trave l Time (s) 9,8 Conn. Peels . (#.t~J 5 Conn. Bikes (#ihr) 0.96 Peak Hour Fa«or 0.06 Adj. Flow (\-ph) 1791 282 Share d lane Tra ff.c {~) Lime Group Flo\•/ (vph) 2073 0 Entllr Blocl(ed ln!Qrsection No No lane Af911men1 left Rlght Median Wtdlh{i\) 12 LIIJ~orrs et(ft) 0 Cromr.ll\ Widlh(h) 16 Tl'.-:> way left Turn lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph} 9 Number of Detectors 2 Detector Ternplale thru leading Detector (ft) 100 Tra11Jog Detector (ft) 0 Detector 1 Posi6on(ft) 0 peteetor 1 Size(ft) 6 Detector 1 Type Cl•Ex Oetecto1 1 Channel Oet~tor 1 Extend (s) 0.0 De!ector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Detector t Delay {s) 0.0 Detector 2 P~llfoo(ft) g4 Detector 2 Sile(ff) 6 Petector 2 Type Cl•Ex Oetec!or 2 Channel D ete~lol 2 Extend. (s) 0.0 Turn Type NA Synchlo 8 • Report lanes, Volumes, Timings 611212013 C-17 1.; Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive ..> _.,. ~ f ,._ ' fl leneGrooe EB P1olecled Phases 3 8 1 Permated Pham 8 8 4 6 Detector Phase 3 6 8 4 4 1 S1\itch Pha.se i.fullll\lm loit@I (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 ~.o 5.0 5.0 Mni mum Split (s) 10.0 32 .o 32 .0 10.0 31.0 31.0 10.0 ToM SpUI (s} 20.0 ~9 .0 29 .0 20.0 29.0 29.0 24 ,o' Tol a! Splil (%) 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% 18.5% M~vm (li e ~n (s) 15.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 24 .0 24 .0 19 .0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al!·Red rune (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 f.() 1.0 1,0 Lost Time M;ust {s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total lost Tll)le (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 l ead/lag lead lag Lag Lead Ltig lag lead lead·Lag Opllmize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Veh:cfe Exlenslon (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ree<1 i l/,oQe · Np ne ~~e None None None None None Waft. Tfme (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 fJash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23,0 22.0 22.0 Pedestrian Cills (#11u) 0 0 0 0 ,A.cl Effct Green (s) 3M 22 .0 22.0 36.5 24.6 24 .6 Act uated glC Ratio 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.19 0.19 vie Ratio OA8 0.89 0.42 0.18 0,71 0.28 Conllol Dela'! 35.8 81.1 9.9 55 .5 61.2 9.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.8 81.1 9.9 55 .5 61.2 9.9 lOS D F A i.: E A Appioach Delay 47.6 49 .3 f\AAloiY.Ji LOS D 0 In erse nSUrl)il\~ Area Type: OllJ ~r Cyde length: 130 A~uated Cycle length : 130 Olfsel: 16 (12%), Referenced to ph ase 2:$BTL ;1nd 6:NBTl , Start of Greeo Nalo1al Cyc;le: 90 Control Type; Actuate~-Coordin al ed i.!a>:imum vJc Ra 6Q; o.9o lnter sectioo Signal Oelaj: 40.9 lol erseelion Capaci ty Utiliiation 93 .2% Anatysls Period (min) 15 s sand Phases : 1: Texas Avenue & Holle man Drive 1-l 1 Synch10 8 • Report l an es, Vol umes, Tim'ngs lnt er~ct'on LOS: O ICU level of Se rvke F C-18 Option 2;Tlming Pion : PM ..... t !" y. \. ·•it~ SBU Sll 6 5 5 2 2 6 ·5 5 5.0 15.o 5.0 5.0 10.0 24 .0 to .6 10.0 24 .0 s7.o 24 .Q Z4,0 18.5% 43.8% 18.5% 16.5% 1.9.0 52.<i 19:o 1~.o 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 lead Lag Load lead Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 None C-Max None Noo e 4.0 15.0 Q 71.1 56.6 76 .9 0.55 0.44 0.59 0.80 0.61 0.90 54 .9 30.3 56.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 &4 .9 30.3 W.8 D c E 33.5 c ~ .... , 6112120 13 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive P10:ecled Phases Permilted Phases p~teciorPha~e Sv.ilch Phase M!nimum In itial (s) Minimum SpU (s) Tota!Split(s) Tola! SpSt (%) Maximum Green (s) Yelol'I Tll!lO (s) AJl-Red Time (s) Losl Time Atf'JUsl (s) Tot ~I Los t Time (s) Leadll.ag ~ead-Lag Op!lmize? Veh.'cle Extens:on {s) Recall II.ode \Ila!}. rune (s) Flash Don! Wa'lc (s) Pede strian Cals (#Av} Act Elfcl Green (s) Aclvated gfC Ra tio v/e Ral'o Conltol Delay Ptieu~ 0e1ay Tol21 Delay LOS Apjl!Oaci! Delay /\pproach LOS Syn chro 8 • Report Lanes. Volumes, TJmlogs 2 15.0 21.0 57.0 43.8% 52 .. 0 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 Lag Yes 2.0 C-t.la~ 4.0 12.0 0 59.8 0.46 '0.00 39 .8 0.0 39.8 D 41.9 D Option 2;Tjmlng Piao : PM 6112/2013 C-19 r I- 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 2A;Timlng Plan: PM .)-.... ---. f ...,__ ' "'\ t !' ~ \. ene roue ' :till lane Co!lfig\lrafo11s ~ Vol ume (vpii) . 7 95 124 159 Ideal Flow {vphpl) 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 Storage length (ft) 0 0 400 Storage lanes 1 0 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 Lane Util Facto r 1,00 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 Ped Bike Failor 0.98 o.99 0.98 too Frt 0.850 0.850 0.989 Fil Proiecled 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 ~aid. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 mo 1863 1583 0 1770 5010 0 0 1770 FltPerrnilled 0.343 0.172 M70 O.H1 Satd. Flow {perm) 1237 1863 1544 318 1863 1558 0 130 5010 0 0 207 Righi Turo on R_ed Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 171 106 12 Lin!; Speed (mph) 30 40 40 Unk Distance (h) 479 465 472 Travel Titl)e (s) 10.9 7.9 8.0 Conft. Peds. (II/hr) 9 9 2 9 9 Con 6. Bikes (lltnr) 1 1 Peak Hour Facloi 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 o.ea 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (Vph) 246 279 171 194 251 100 7 193 1242 99" 129 166 Shared Lene Traff;c (%) lane Group'Fbw(vph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 0 200 1341 0 0 295 Eli!er Blo<l<ed ln!ersecllon No No No No No No No No No No No No lane Af'QOmGn\ Left Len Righi left lei! Rlghl RNA Lek Left Righi RNA left Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 Un.\ Offse~ft) · ' 0 0 0 C1oss1·ialk W.'dth(ft) 16 16 16 TvAJ way Le~ Turn l8t)e Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t .00 f.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 '.rurnfllg Speed· (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 ts 9 9 15 Num~r ol Oe!eclots 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 betector Temp!a!e Left ThlU Right left Thru Right Len Left Thru Le ft left leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 2o 20 Traifrng Oeteclor (ft) . 0 0 Q 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oeteciot 1 Pos!tion(li) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DelectOf 1 "Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 20 6 20 20 De!ectOf 1 Type Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cit Ex Cl+Ex ci.i:x Ch Ex C!+Ex CM:x C!+Ex CltEx Detector 1 Challne! Ooteclor t Extend {s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oeteclor 1 Qu eue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oeleclor 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.o 0.0 Delettor 2 Position (ft) 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 Oetec!Of 2 Type Cl•Ex C!+Ex Cit Ex DeledOl 2 ChaMel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turo Type pm•pt NA Perm pmtpl NA Perm pm•pl pmtpl NA pm•pl pm+ pl Synchro 8 -Report bmes, Vo.'t.1mes, Tunings 6112/2013 C-20 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 2A ;Tllling Plan: PM ! .-1 ~Gtoo leoo'°nriguralions Volume (vph) 271 Ideal flow (vphpl) 1900 Storage Leng\h (ft) 0 storage lanes 0 Teptr length (ft) Lane Ut1. FaclOI 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 Fc1 0,980 Fil Protected Said . Flow (plot) 4957 0 F!lPermilled Said. Flow (perm) 4957 0 Righi Turn Oil Red Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 27 link Speed (mph) 40 Link Dis tance (ft) 635 Trave l T1111e (s} 10.8 COl\ft. Peds. (#1111) Conn. ~~es (llih1) Peak Hour Factor o.w 0.96 Adj . Flow(vph) 1791 282 Shilled Lane TraJf;c (%) lane Groupflow (vph) 2073 0 Enler Blocked lnlersection No No Lane Atgnmeot .. -Left Righ t Med!an Widlli(ft) 12 Unk Offset(ft) 0 Crosswal:~ \V1dU1(ft) 16 Two Way Left Turn Looe Headway Facto! 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number or Deteclors 2 Deteclor Template Tluu Leading Deleclor (ft) 100 'rr ai!i(lg Detector (ft) 0 Detector 1 Posilion(ft) 0 fR!tector 1 Slze(ft) 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Detector 1 Chann el Detector 1 Elilend (s) 0.0 Oeleetor 1 Queue [s) 0.0 Detec(of' 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Detector 2 PGsllion(fl} 94 DetectOf 2 Size(fi) 6 De!eclor 2 Type Cf+Ex 'Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Ty-pe NA SynduQ 8 • Report lanes. Volumes, limings 6112120 13 C-21 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive ..> -+ ") f +-' fl eoe GiOIJ EOR wa Pro!ected Phases 3 7 Perntl led Phases 8 8 4 4 OetectQ< Ph&$$ 3 8 8 7 4 S1\ildi Phase Minmum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 l.fo'mum Sp!~ (s) 10.0 32.0 32 .0 10.0 31.0 31.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 ~.o 29 .0 20 .0 29.0 29.0 24 .0 Total $plit (o/•) 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% fa.s% Maidmum Green (s) 15.0 24 .0 24 ,0 15,0 24.0 24 .0 19.0 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.l> 1.0 1.9 1.0 1:0 Lost rime Adjusl (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lo slTima (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 lead/lag lead Lag lag lead lag Leg Lead Lead -lag Opfmize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extens»o (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Noo~ Walk Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Flash. Dool. Walk (s) 23 .0 23.0 22.0 22 .0 Pedeslrian Ca:ls (#1llr) 0 0 0 0 Act Eflcl Green (s) 33.4 22.0 22.0 38,6 24.6 24 .6 AGluated g/C Ratio 0.26 0 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.19 0.19 v!cRa tio 0.48 0.89 0.42 0.78 0.71 0.28 Control Delay 35.8 81 .1 9.9 55 .5 61.2 9.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To tal Delay 35.8 81.1 9.9 55.6 61.2 9.9 LOS D F A E E A Approoch Delay 47.6 49.3 App<ooch LOS D 0 fote1seelion Summa Area Type : Other Cycte Length : 130 Aduated C)°Cle leng!ll: 130 Offset: 16 (12%), Referenced to phase 2;SBT L ~nd 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cyde : 90 Cootrol Type : Acl\ialed-Coord:Oaled Maximum vie Ratio: 0.90 lnt ei seclioo Sign al Delay: 40.9 Intersection Capacily Utlizalion 93.2% Analys is Period (mln) 15 2-l s Synchro 8 • Report lenes, Volumes, Tinl'n9s lntersecti<m LOS: D ICU Level of $erl.ce F C-22 Oplion 2A;Trning Plan : PM ~ t ~ lf \. SB 5 2 6 5 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 24 .0 10.0 10.0 24.0 57,0 24 .0 24 .0 18.5% 43.8% 16.5% 18.5% 19.0 52 ,0 19.0 19.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead lag lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 None C·Max Nooe NOile 4.0 15.0 0 I 71.1 56.8 76.9 0.55 0.44 0.59 0.80 o:s1 0,90 54 .9 30.3 56.8 0.0 M 0.0 54 .9 30.3 56.8 D c E 33 .5 c I , .. l 611212013 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Protected Phases Permilled Phases Detec!01 Phase Sv.\tch Phase Mi\lm um lnillcl (s) ~finimum Sp!l {s) rota! Split (s) Total Split(%) Ma\imum Green (s) Ye Cow Time [s) An·Red Time (s) lost Time Ad;ust (s) rota! lostlima (s) Lead/lag lead ·Lag Optfflze? Vehic!e Extension (s) R~IMode Walk Time (s) fl~ Dont W<lk (s) Pe<festrlan Ce!ls (#illl) Act f:ffct Green (s) Actuatsd g/C Ratio vie Ratio Contto1 De lay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS SyrKhro 8 • Report lanes, Volume s, Tim'ngs 2 1s.o 21.0 57.0 43.8% 52.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 lag Yes 2.0 .C.Max 4.0 12.0 0 59.8 0.46 0;90 39 .. 8 0.0 39.8 D 41.9 D Opfon Z4;Tlmlng Piao : PM 6/1212013 C-23 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 3;Tirring Plan : PM _)-_... .., f -"-fl ~ t !' ~ \. eneGrou E L EBT EBR Will /BT \'/BR Looe Configura~ons 'f'i H 'f' 'I tt '(' Hft vo1uma(vp1JJ 236 208 164 186 241 102 7 1192 95 124 Ideal Flow (vphpQ isoo 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1So0 1900 1900 1900 Storage length (ft) 140 100 225 100 0 Storage lenes 1 1 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Ubl. F a<:tor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 i Ped Bike Factor 1.00 G.$8 0.99 0,98 1.00 Fri 0.850 0.850 o:osg l Fl!Proieci.ed 0.950 0.950 0.95{) 0.950 Sald. Flow (pro!) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 0 1770 5018 0 0 1770 Flt P~rm;iled 0.521 0.329 0,034 0.121 Seid , Flow (perm) 1879 3539 1544 608 3539 1558 0 119 5018 0 0 225 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Sa td, Flow (RTOR) 171 106 12 Unk Spee\! (mph) 30 40 40 Link Distance (ft) 479 465 m Tr&vel Time (s) 10.9 7.9 8.0 Conft. Peds. (#,'hr) 2 9 9 2 5 9 9 Conft. Bll:es (tl<hr) 1 1 Peak Hour Facior 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 o.w 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj . Flow (vph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 7 193 1242 99 129 166 Shated Lane Tlatric (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 246 279 171 194 251 106 0 200 1341 0 0 295 Enler Blocked lntersec'tion No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignrnenl Left lefi Right l eft Left Right RNA Left Lett Right RNA Len ~ledian Width(ft) 24 24 12 Link Offsel(fi) 0 0 0 Cro~wal'.< Widlh(ft) 16 16 t6 Two way left Turn l ane HeadwayFect01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Detect.or Template Left Thru Right lefi Thru Righi left left Thru Left Lett I· lead:tlg Oelector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 20 100 20 20 Tra!fing Defector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delec\or 1 Position(tt) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deteclor 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 20 6 20 20 Oeleclor 1 Type Cl•Ex Cit Ex Cl•Ex Cl+ Ex Cl•Ex Cl+Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl•Ex Cl+ Ex Oe!ector 1 Channel Oeleclor 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oeleelor 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fl) 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cit Ex Cl+Ex Cl•Ex Delec!OI 2 Channel Oelector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0,0 o:o Tllln Type pmtpl NA Perm pm•pt NA Perm pm•pl pm•pl NA pm•pt pm•pt Synchro 8 ·Report l anes. Volume$, Timings 6/12/2013 C-24 i: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 3;Tlll11ng Plan : PM i ../ e!)j~r 8'6~ lane,oofigurnlions Vo!vme (vph) 271 kleal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Storage length (ft) 0 Storage lanes 0 leper length (fl) Lene Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.980 flt Protected I. Sa!d . Flow (piol) 4967 0 Ff! Perrr<tted Satd . Flow (perm) 4967 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Sald. Flow (RTOR) 27 link Speed (mph) 40 link Distance (ft) 740 Travel Time (s) 12.G Conn . Peds . (Mu) 5 Confl. BL\es (fllhr) Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 Adj . Flow (\'Ph) 1791 282 Shared Lane Trame(%) lane Group Flow (vph) 2073 0 Enter Bloclled Intersection No No Lane AJ:gnment Left Righi Median Widlh{ft) 12 Link Olfset(ft) 0 Crosswalk \Vidlh{lt) 16 Two' way Lett Tum lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Numbe1 of Detectors 2 Deteclorlemp!ate Thro lead:ng Detector (ft) 100 Trall'.ng Detector (ft) 0 Detector 1 PoslUon(fi) 0 Deieetor 1 Size(ft) 6 De teclor I Type Detector 1 Channel Cl•Ex Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Deteclor 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Detector 2 Posltion(ft) 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 Detector 2 Type Cl•Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0,0 Tum Type NA Synchro 8 • RePQrt lanes, Volumes, Timings 6112/2013 C-25 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive ~ -+ " -f +--\. fl eneGrou P1otected Phases 8 7 1 Pe rmitted Phases 8 4 4 6 De!ecl01 Phase 8 8 7 4 4 1 SvJlcll Phase M'nimum In itial (S) 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 M:Oimum Split (s) 10.0 32 .o 32.0 10.0 31 .0 31.0 10.0 Tota!'Split (s) 20.0 29.0 29.0 20.0 29.0 29.0 24.0 Tola! Splil (%) 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% 15.4% 22.3% 22.3 % 18.5% MSximum Green (s) 15.0 ~to 24 .0 15.0 24 .0 24 .0 19.0 Yetow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4:0 AJl.Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 losl Tltne Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tola! Losl Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Leadll.eg Lead Lag Lag Lead Leg Leg lead L&ad·Lag Oplm ze? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Veh.'de Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ReccllW.ode None None None None None None N60& Walk Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 flash Don! \'/alk (s) 23.0 23.0 22 .0 22 .0 Pedeslrian CaUs (#tlll) 0 0 0 0 Act Etfct Green (s) 2a.1 14 .8 14 .8 31 .0 16.9 16.9 Act uated g/C RaUo 0.21 o.11 0.11 0.24 0.13 0.13 v/cRaUo 0.47 0.69 0.52 0.72 0.54 0.36 Control Delay ~0.7 64 .5 13.2 55.0 57.2 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tola!Oe!ay 40.7 64 .5 13.2 55.0 57.2 12.4 LOS 0 E B D E B Approach Delay 43.5 47.8 ApPfoacli LOS D 0 fiiterseciion SUmma!)'. Area Type : Olh er Cyde length: 130 Actuated C)'cie Length : 130 Offrol : 16 (12%), Reference(! lo phase 2:SBTl <md 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natural C)-clo: 100 Conltol Type :Ao!ue!ed·CoOld in al~d M~mum v/c Ralio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 34.5 ln!e1seclion Capacity Utilization 91.0 % Anarysls Period (min) 15 S ls and Phasei: 1: Texa~ Avenue & Hol!eman Olive Synchro 8 • Reporl lengs, V1>!umes, Timings Intersection LOS : C ICU Level ol Service E C-26 Option 3;Timin9 Plan: PM ' t ~ l.J. \.. 6 5 5 2 2 6 5 5 5.0 16.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 24 .0 10.0 10.0 24.0 57.0 24.0 2~.o 18.5% 43.8% 18.5% 18.6% 19.0 52.0 19.0 19.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 LE ad leg Lead Lead Yes Yes Ye$ Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 None C.Max None None 4.0 15.0 0 77.0 62.2 85.1 0.59 0.48 0.65 0.78 0.56 0.79 5.2.6 26 .5 37 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.6 26.5 37.5 0 c 0 29.8 c 6112/2013 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive eoe rou Protected Phases Pero~tted Phases Detector Ph3$e 2 Svdleh Phase Miolmum tnr.i2J (s) 16.0 MilinumSptt(s) 21.0 T6tal Split (s) 57.0 Tota Split(%) <13.8% Maximum Green (s) 52.0 YefowTl/lle (s) 4.0 All·Red Time (s). 1.0 Los! Time Ac!;ust (s) 0.0 Total Losmne (s) 5.0 leadllag lag lead·leg OpW\ize? Yes Vehicle Extensloo (s) 2.0 Recall II.ode C·Max Walk Time (s) 4.0 Ffash Dool \'(a!'~ {s) 12.0 Pedesllian Ca.'ls (#.'11) O Act Effct Green (s) 66.4 Actuated g/C RatiO 0.51 vie Rafo 0.61 Conltol Delay 30.9 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 30.9 LOS C Approach Delay 31.8 Apflloadl LOS C otetseclion Summa Sync-hro 8 -Report laoes, Volumes, Tunings Option 3;Tim:ng Plan : PM 6/12/2013 C-27 C-28 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive Option 4;Tirring P!en: PM + ~ [ eGroo SBT SBR lane'i:Mfiguralioos ttt ,., Volume (~'Ph) 1719 271 Ideal Flow {vpllpl) 1900 1900 Storage Length (II) 175 storage Lanes 1 TepEr length (ft) lane Ulil. Factor 0.91 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.96 Fri 0.850 Flt P1o!e<\ed 5a!d. Flow (pro!) 5085 1583 FU Pe rmilled Said . Flow (perm) 5085 1520 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 159 Llnl< Speed (mph) 40 link Distance (ft) 740 Travel Time (s) 12.6 Conft. Peds. (#1hr) 5 ()()n~. Bikes (iflh r) Peak Ho11t Factor 0,96 0.95 Adi · flow (vpll) 1791 282 Shated Lene Ttalfic (S'.) Lane Groop Flow (vph) 1791 282 Enter Blocked Intersection No No Lt!ne Aligmient Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 LWlk Olfset(ft) 0 Cro~1·ia~ W'idlh(ft) 16 Tw~way left Turn lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors 2 1 Oeteclor Tempta\e Thfli Right leading Detettor (ft) 100 20 Jra'ling Oe!ector (ft) 0 0 Oelecto1 1 Posi!l-On(ft) 0 0 D.e.tector 1 Size(lt) 6 20 Detector I Type Ch Ex Cl•Ex P ~te.ctor 1 Chamel peteclor 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Detecto11 Queue (s) o.o 0.0 Deteclor 1 Dela-/ (s) 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Potitlon(ft) 94 Defector 2 Size(ft) 6 Defector 2 Type CH Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type NA Perm Synchro 8 • Report Lanes, Volumes, Timlngs S/1212013 C-29 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Dr ive ,> ..... " .(" ..,_ "'- ane IO!I EOL Ellf BR Pcotected Phases 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 Oe!eclor Phas~ 3 8 8 7 4 Sv.ilch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Spin (s) 10.0 32 .0 32.0 10.0 31.0 31 .0 10.0 Total SpU (s) 20 .0 29.0 29.0 20,0 29.0 29.0 2(0 Total Spt;t (%) 15.4% 22.3% 22.3% 15.4% 22 .3Y. 223% 18.5% Maximu m Green (s) 15.0 24 .0 24.0 15.0 24.0 24.0 19.0 YeUow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 A!l·RedTur.e (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 ·1.0 1.0 1.0 l.0 lost rime Adjust (s) o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Leadlla9 Le ad Lag L&-g lead lag lag Lead lead·Lag Optimlie? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 RecalMode None None None None None None None WalkTirne(s) 4.0 4.0 to 4.0 Flash Don! Wa!k (s) 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 Pedestrian Cals (llihr) 0 0 0 0 Acl Effct Green (s) 33,4 n.o 22 .0 38.5 24 .6 24 .6 Actuated 9/0 Ratio 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.19 0.19 vfc Ratio 0.48 0.89 0.42 0.78 0.71 0.28 Control Delay 35.8 81.1 9.9 55.5 61 .2 11 .1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.8 8(1 9.9 55 .5 61.2 11 .1 LOS D F A E E B Approach Delay 47.6 49.6 Approach LOS 0 0 olersecllO/i Stlllllll~ Alea Type; Olher C)'cle Length; 130 Actuated Cycle Length : 130 Olfs&l: 16 (12%), Refecenced lo elJase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Conl1ol T)'P&: Actuated·Coordioated Maximum vto Ratio: 0.00 Intersection s:gnal Del ay: 37.3 Intersection Capacity U t~ization 87.1 % Analysis Period (m'n) 15 Synch!o 8 • Report lanes, Volu mes , Timings lnlersec6on LOS: D ICU level of Servi<;e E C-30 OpUon 4;fimlog Plan : PM '\ t r lJ. \. SBll 1 6 5 5 6 2 2 1 6 6 5 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 24 .0 10.0 10.0 24.0 57.0 24 .0 24.0 18.5% 43 .8% 18.5% 18.5% 19.0 52 .0 19.o 19.0 I 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 lead lag lead Lead Yes Y8$ Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 t None C·Max None None I 4.0 15.0 0 71.1 56 .8 76 .9 0.55 0.44 0.59 0.80 0.61 0.90 54 .9 30.3 56 .8 0.0 0.0 o.o 54.9 30.3 56.8 D c E 33 .. 5 c r l I I 611212013 1: Texas Avenue & Holleman Drive !® P1olected Phases Permftled Phases Dtl teclo1 Phase SvAtcti Phase 1..!irr!mom Initial (s) Mronum Split (s) Jotet Spl:t (s) Total Spla (%) M@mul)l Green (s) Ydow Time (s) ~l·Red Time (s) losl f1111& M;ust (s) Total lost Time (s) lead.tag leadJeg Optmze? Verncie Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Fl~h Dool Wa!k (s) Pedes(rJan Ca~s {#/hr) A ~l Effct Green (s) Moated glC Ratio vie Ratio Conllol Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach De lay Approach LOS Synch10 8 • Report lanes, Volumes, T111~ngs + ./ SBT SB 2 2 2 2 15.0 15.0 21 .0 21.0 57.0 57.0 43 .8% 43.6% 52.0 52.0 4'.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 o.o 0.0 5.0 5.0 l<g lag Yes Yes 2.0 2.0 C-Max C-Max 4.0 4.0 12.0 12.0 0 0 59.6 59.8 0.46 0.46 0.11 0.36 33.4 12.2 0.0 0.0 3l.4 12.2 c a 33.8 c Option 4;flllllllg Plan: PM l 611212013 C-31