appendix c. transportation technical report - valley metro · mountain view road. at mountain view...

September 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

APPENDIX C. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

September 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

This page is intentionally left blank.

Transportation Technical Report August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension


Transportation Technical Report i August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. V

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 1

1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 2

2.0 2016 TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ............................................................... 3

2.1 ROADWAY AND STREET CLASSIFICATION ............................................... 3

2.2 CURBSIDE USES: ON-STREET PARKING, LOADING ZONES, AND BUS ZONES ................................................................................................... 7

2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUME ......................................................................................... 7

2.4 EXISTING TRANSIT ..................................................................................... 12

2.5 EXISTING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ............................................. 14

3.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .................................................................... 17

3.1 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 17

3.2 TRAFFIC DIVERSION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 18

3.3 SPECIAL EVENTS ....................................................................................... 19

3.4 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROACH ............................ 19

3.5 TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................. 29

4.0 IMPACTS TO PARKING ....................................................................................... 35

4.1 ON-STREET PARKING IMPACTS ............................................................... 35

4.2 OFF-STREET PARKING IMPACTS ............................................................. 36

4.3 PARK-AND-RIDES ....................................................................................... 38

5.0 IMPACTS TO ON-STREET LOADING ZONES .................................................... 43

5.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 43

5.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................. 43

5.3 MITIGATION ................................................................................................. 43

6.0 IMPACTS TO PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES .................................... 43



7.0 IMPACTS TO TRANSIT ........................................................................................ 44



7.3 MITIGATION ................................................................................................. 45

Transportation Technical Report ii August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

8.0 IMPACTS TO TRUCK ROUTES ........................................................................... 46



8.3 MITIGATION ................................................................................................. 46

9.0 IMPACTS ANTICIPATED DURING CONSTRUCTION – MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC ......................................................................................................... 46



TABLES

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – 2016 EXISTING, NO-BUILD AND BUILD ...................................................................................... VII

TABLE 2: EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ALONG BUILD ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................... 4

TABLE 3: EXISTING CURBSIDE USES ALONG BUILD ALTERNATIVE – BUS STOPS ...................................................................................................... 7

TABLE 4: DUNLAP AVENUE PARK-AND-RIDE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ............ 11

TABLE 5: BUILD ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR BUS TRANSIT ROUTES ..................... 13

TABLE 6: 2016 PM PEAK HOUR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COUNTS ................. 16

TABLE 7: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION ............. 18

TABLE 8: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION ........ 18

TABLE 9: NO-BUILD AND BUILD ALTERNATIVES PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 24

TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – 2016 EXISTING, NO-BUILD AND BUILD ...................................................................................... 31

TABLE 11: PARK-AND-RIDE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ......................................... 39

TABLE 12: 2016 EXISTING AND NO-BUILD/BUILD TRANSIT OPERATIONS ........... 45

Transportation Technical Report iii August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................. 3

FIGURE 2: BUILD ALTERNATIVE STUDY INTERSECTIONS ....................................... 5

FIGURE 3: 2016 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL ........ 6

FIGURE 4: AVERAGE WEEKDAY 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................. 9

FIGURE 5: 2016 EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES – PM PEAK HOUR ............................................................................................. 10

FIGURE 6: PM PEAK HOUR DUNLAP AVENUE PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS ........... 11

FIGURE 7: 2016 EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK....................................................... 12

FIGURE 8: BICYCLE AND MULTIUSE FACILITIES ..................................................... 15

FIGURE 9: NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES – PM PEAK HOUR ............................................................................................. 21

FIGURE 10: BUILD ALTERNATIVE LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................................................... 22

FIGURE 11: BUILD ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES – PM PEAK HOUR ............................................................................................. 23

FIGURE 12: 25TH AVENUE – EXCLUSIVE LEFT-TURN LANE .................................. 27

FIGURE 13: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS REMOVED, BY PARCEL ....................................................................................................... 37

FIGURE 14: PM PEAK HOUR METROCENTER PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS ........... 40

FIGURE 15: PM PEAK HOUR METROCENTER PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS ........... 41

FIGURE 16: PM PEAK HOUR ROSE MOFFORD PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS .......... 42

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS – SYNCHRO REPORTS

Transportation Technical Report iv August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension


Transportation Technical Report v August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension is the second part of a two-phased project that began in 2004 originally as one large project and was studied in an Alternatives Analysis (AA) per FTA guidelines. Subsequent to completion of the AA, Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix decided to split the Northwest Extension into two phases to make it more affordable. The Phase I project was completed and opened in March 2016. Phase I includes the portion of the Northwest Extension that began at the original light rail system terminus on 19th Avenue south of Bethany Home Road (at Montebello Avenue) and continued north along 19th Avenue to Dunlap Avenue. The current Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension is similar to Phase II of the original project except that the terminus would extend west across Interstate 17 (I-17) to Metrocenter instead of ending on the eastern side of I-17 near 25th Avenue/Mountain View Road. For additional information, refer to Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension or Valley Metro Rail, Northwest Extension Recommended Alternative Report, July 12, 2005.

The Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension (Build Alternative) would begin just west of the intersection of 19th and Dunlap Avenues at the current terminus and would continue west on Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue, where it would turn north and continue to Mountain View Road. At Mountain View Road, the extension would turn west and cross over I-17 on a new bridge and terminate on the eastern side of Metrocenter just east of the mall’s outer ring road (Metro Parkway). The existing transit center on the southwestern side of Metrocenter would be relocated to the new light rail station area on the eastern side of the mall to provide a multimodal transportation center serving both buses and light rail.

This report summarizes the existing conditions and discusses the future year (2040) impacts of the proposed Build Alternative on transportation elements in comparison with the No-Build Alternative. These transportation elements include traffic operations, parking, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Three study scenarios were analyzed for each of the transportation elements:

2016 Existing

2040 No-Build

2040 Build

The Build Alternative includes a 260-space park-and-ride (PNR) and transit center at the end of line near Metrocenter, with an additional 179 spaces added to existing parking at the Rose Mofford Sports Complex. A total of 146 of those spaces would be shared between transit users and sports complex users and 33 spaces would be for sports complex users only.

The traffic analysis was conducted to study the evening (PM) peak period using existing traffic counts. The counts were then grown to 2016 and 2040 volumes using a 1 percent annual growth rate agreed upon by the City of Phoenix. The PM peak period was selected for analysis because it is typically when the highest potential for congestion occurs, thus representing a worst-case scenario. Synchro software was used for the analysis. Table 1

Transportation Technical Report vi August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

summarizes the results from the study analysis and the intersections’ level of service (LOS) in the 2016 Existing, 2040 No-Build and 2040 Build conditions.

The City of Phoenix provided the following LOS criteria to determine what constitutes an impact at an intersection and would require mitigation:

For LOS A through D, if the Build Alternative maintains the same or improved LOS compared with the No-Build Alternative, it is not an adverse impact. However, if the Build Alternative LOS degrades below that of the No-Build Alternative, delays of greater than 5 percent would be considered an adverse impact and would require mitigation.

For LOS E, the delay for the Build Alternative must be greater than 5 percent compared with the No-Build Alternative to be considered an adverse impact. Mitigation would be required for the adverse impact.

LOS F would typically be considered an adverse impact and would require mitigation.

Intersection 18 operates at LOS D in 2016 existing conditions. Intersections 6 and 19 operate at LOS F in 2016 existing conditions. No mitigation at these locations is proposed as part of this project because ADOT, MAG and the City of Phoenix will address traffic congestion at these intersections through improvements planned as part of the Spine Study: Interstate 10 and Interstate 17 Corridor Master Plan.

At Intersection 16, Metro Parkway and Cheryl Drive, delays would increase and the intersection would operate at LOS C under the Build Alternative. This increase in delay would result from the relocation of the transit center operations and proposed PNR. The intersection operates at LOS C with proposed intersection configuration and signal optimization.

While Intersection 16 meets the requirements for additional mitigation, the City of Phoenix has accepted the configuration proposed under the Build Alternative. In consultation, City of Phoenix staff noted that LOS C is an acceptable LOS. Much of the traffic using this intersection would be city buses and users of the PNR and transit center as a result of the Build Alternative. Further, since Metro Parkway is a minor arterial providing access to Metrocenter and surrounding properties, City of Phoenix staff said that additional delays at this intersection would not adversely affect regional mobility.

Transportation Technical Report vii August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – 2016 EXISTING, NO-BUILD AND BUILD

Int. IDa

Intersection

2016 Existing 2040 No-Build 2040 Build

Intersection Delay

(seconds) LOS

Intersection Delay

(seconds) LOS

Intersection Delay (seconds)

LOS

1 19th Ave and Dunlap Ave 49 D 56 E 56 E

2 C St and Dunlap Ave 14 B 13 B 18 B

3 23rd Ave and Dunlap Ave 29 C 34 C 31 C

4 24th Ave and Dunlap Ave 17b Cb 32b Db 16 B

5 25th Ave and Dunlap Ave 20 B 24 C 26 C

6 I-17 and Dunlap Ave interchange 115 F 167 F 175 F

7 25th Ave and Mission Ln 16b Cb 27b Db 19 C

8 25th Ave and Sheraton driveway 19b Cb 31b Db 18b Cb

9 25th Ave and 24th Ave 11b Bb 13b Bb 15 B

10 25th Ave and south canal pedestrian crossing — — — — 4 A

11 25th Ave and north canal pedestrian crossing — — — — 3 A

12 25th Ave and parking lot pedestrian crossing — — — — 4 A

13 25th Ave and Black Canyon Conference Center driveway

12b Bb 13b Bb 13 A

14 25th Ave and Mountain View Rd 13b Bb 16b Cb 18 B

15 I-17 Frontage Rd and Cheryl Dr 9b Ab 10b Ab 10b Bb

16 Metro Pkwy and Cheryl Dr 7 A 7 A 21 C

17 Metro Pkwy and proposed signal — — — — 6 A

18 I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Ave 48 D 113 F 120 F

19 I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Ave 121 F 195 F 213 F

Notes: Level of service from HCM2000 Synchro reports. Dashes (—) denote not applicable. I-17 = Interstate 17, LOS = level of service a Corresponds to numbered intersections in Figure 2. b Unsignalized intersection approach with highest delay and corresponding approach LOS.

Transportation Technical Report viii August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension


Transportation Technical Report 1 August 2018 Environmental Assessment Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension is the second part of a two-phased project that began in 2004 originally as one large project and was studied in an Alternatives Analysis (AA) per FTA guidelines. Subsequent to completion of the AA, Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix decided to split the Northwest Extension into two phases to make it more affordable. The Phase I project was completed and opened in March 2016. Phase I includes the portion of the Northwest Extension that began at the original light rail system terminus on 19th Avenue south of Bethany Home Road (at Montebello Avenue) and continued north along 19th Avenue to Dunlap Avenue. The current Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension is similar to Phase II of the original project except that the terminus would extend west across I-17 to Metrocenter instead of ending on the eastern side of I-17 near 25th Avenue/Mountain View Road. For additional information, refer to Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension or Valley Metro Rail, Northwest Extension Recommended Alternative Report, July 12, 2005.

The Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension (Build Alternative) would begin just west of the intersection of 19th and Dunlap Avenues at the current terminus and would continue west on Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue, where it would turn north and continue to Mountain View Road. At Mountain View Road, the extension would turn west and cross over Interstate 17 (I-17, Black Canyon Freeway) on a new bridge and terminate on the eastern side of Metrocenter just east of the mall’s outer ring road (Metro Parkway). The existing transit center on the southwestern side of Metrocenter would be relocated to the new light rail station area on the eastern side of the mall to provide a multimodal transportation center serving both buses and light rail.

This report summarizes the existing conditions and discusses the impacts of the proposed Build Alternative on transportation elements in comparison with the No-Build Alternative. These transportation elements include traffic operations, parking, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The No-Build and Build Alternatives are evaluated for the year 2040.

The report discusses 2016 traffic conditions, which serve as a base to compare the No-Build and Build Alternatives’ transportation changes. The evening (PM) peak period was selected for analysis because it is typically when the highest potential for congestion occurs, thus representing a worst-case scenario. The PM peak period is from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The busiest hour in this period is referred to here as the “PM peak hour.”

This report will assist Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix in understanding the potential transportation impacts of the proposed project and in developing appropriate design strategies, where needed, to avoid or minimize adverse impacts.

Definitions of the No-Build and Build Alternatives are provided below and are explained in detail in Chapter 2.0 of the Environmental Assessment (EA).

1.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative represents conditions in 2040 if the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension were not built. It provides a point of comparison with the Build Alternative and is defined as the existing transit and roadway/highway system plus programmed (committed) transportation improvement projects. Valley Metro assumed “committed” projects to be only


those projects contained in the current fiscally constrained MAG 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. It also includes proposed bus service and route changes in the City of Phoenix Transportation 2050 (T-2050) Plan that are planned for implementation by 2040. T-2050 was approved by Phoenix voters as Proposition 104 in August 2015.

1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The Build Alternative discussed in this report would consist of an approximately 1.55-mile-long northwestern extension of the existing Valley Metro light rail line from its current terminus at Dunlap and 19th Avenues to Metrocenter on the western side of I-17 (Figure 1). The Build Alternative is scheduled to begin operations in 2023. Like the No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative represents conditions in 2040.

The proposed light rail alignment starts on Dunlap Avenue just west of the existing 19th Avenue/Dunlap light rail station. The alignment continues west and crosses the eastbound traffic lanes of Dunlap Avenue at C Street and enters the roadway median. The tracks continue west within the median to 25th Avenue. At 25th Avenue, the tracks turn north and run on the eastern side of the road until reaching Mountain View Road, where the tracks turn west and transition to an aerial alignment where the light rail trains operate on fill material and elevated structure above the Mountain View Road median. The alignment continues west, crossing on a bridge over the I-17 northbound frontage road and all I-17 freeway lanes. On the western side of I-17, the alignment continues on an aerial structure and turns north following above the alignment of the at-grade I-17 southbound frontage road to the end-of-line station just north of Cheryl Drive within Metrocenter.

Figure 1 shows the proposed light rail route. For the purposes of all elements of the transportation analysis with the exception of transit operations, the study area slightly differs from the project study area presented in Chapter 2.0 of the EA and in Figure 1. For this report, the traffic analysis primarily focused on intersections along the alignment and on I-17 interchanges close to the Build Alternative, which are considered high-volume traffic intersections.


FIGURE 1: BUILD ALTERNATIVE

2.0 2016 TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

The existing transportation features and conditions within the Build Alternative study area are documented in this section of the report. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics inventoried for the roadways along the proposed light rail alignment, which include roadways, transit operations, on-street parking availability and pedestrian/bicycle facilities.

2.1 ROADWAY AND STREET CLASSIFICATION

The light rail would traverse Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road, where it would then cross I-17 to reach the end of line parallel to the frontage road. According to the City of Phoenix Street Classification Map,1 Dunlap Avenue is classified as a major arterial street. Arterials are designed to carry large volumes of traffic moderate distances and also to accommodate transit, bicyclists and pedestrians. 25th Avenue is a minor collector street. Collector streets provide for short-distance trips between local streets and arterial streets.

1 https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00003.pdf


Mountain View Road is a local street, which provides short-distance movement to connect to collector and arterial streets.

Other roads in the Build Alternative study intersections include I-17, 19th Avenue, Peoria Avenue and Metro Parkway East. I-17 is a freeway that connects the Phoenix metropolitan area with Flagstaff and other communities in northern Arizona. Freeways have limited access points and provide for long-distance trips within Phoenix and between Phoenix and other cities. 19th and Peoria Avenues are both classified as arterial streets, although 19th Avenue is considered a major arterial, according to the City of Phoenix Street Classification Map. Metro Parkway East is a collector street.

Table 2 summarizes the current travel lane configurations, locations of signalized and unsignalized intersections and posted speed limits for Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue, Mountain View Road and Metro Parkway East. Figure 2 presents locations of the study intersections and Figure 3 illustrates the existing lane configuration and type of traffic control (for example, traffic signals or stop control) at each existing study intersection.

TABLE 2: EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ALONG BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Travel Lanes Speed Limit

Intersections Transit Routes

On-street

Parking

Bicycle Facilities

Pedestrian Facilities Signalized Unsignalized

Dunlap Ave – 19th Ave to 25th Ave

Three lanes eastbound and two lanes westbound with two-way left-turn lane

40 mph

19th Ave Mobile home park 23rd Ave 25th Ave

22nd Ave 24th Ave

Route 90 None None Sidewalks both sides

Dunlap Ave – 25th Ave to I-17

Three lanes in each direction with two-way left-turn lane

40 mph

I-17 inter-change

None Route 90 None None Sidewalks both sides

25th Ave – Dunlap Ave to Mountain View Rd

One lane in each direction with two-way left-turn lane

35 mph

None Mission Ln 24th Ave Mountain View Rd

None None Bicycle lanes both sides

Sidewalks both sides

Mountain View Rd – 25th Ave to Northbound I-17 Frontage Rd

One lane in each direction

25 mph

None 25th Ave 25th Dr 26th Dr I-17 frontage road

None None None Sidewalks both sides

Metro Pkwy East – Cheryl Dr to Intersection before 27th Ave

Two lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes, islands

35 mph

Cheryl Dr None Route 106

None None Sidewalks both sides

Sources: Google Maps satellite images and street view, field check Notes: I-17 = Interstate 17, mph = miles per hour


FIGURE 2: BUILD ALTERNATIVE STUDY INTERSECTIONS

Note: Intersections 10, 11, 12 and 13 are pedestrian signals with the sole purpose of providing pedestrian access.


FIGURE 3: 2016 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL


2.2 CURBSIDE USES: ON-STREET PARKING, LOADING ZONES, AND BUS ZONES

Existing land uses along the Build Alternative are primarily suburban, including low-density commercial and office. As such, curbside uses of public right-of-way (ROW) are uncommon. Currently, no curbside parking or loading zones exist along the alignment. The only curbside uses along the existing Build Alternative alignment are for transit services, specifically bus service passenger boardings and alightings. Table 3 summarizes the number of bus stops on Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue, Mountain View Road and Metro Parkway East.

TABLE 3: EXISTING CURBSIDE USES ALONG BUILD ALTERNATIVE – BUS STOPS Road Segment Boundaries Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Dunlap Ave 19th Ave to 25th Ave Bus stops: 3 Bus stops: 3 Not applicable

Not applicable

25th Ave to I-17 Bus stops: 1 Bus stops: 1 Not applicable

Not applicable

25th Ave Dunlap Ave to Mountain View Rd

Not applicable Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Mountain View Rd

25th Ave to Northbound I-17 Frontage Rd


Not applicable

Not applicable

Metro Pkwy E Cheryl Dr to Intersection before 27th Ave


Bus stops: 1 Not applicable

Source: Valley Metro Bus Stop Database (2016) Note: I-17 = Interstate 17

2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUME

2.3.1 Average Daily Traffic

Average daily traffic is the total volume of vehicle traffic of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days. This helps assess the level of exposure on the study roadway.

Figure 4 provides the average daily traffic along the planned Build Alternative alignment on Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue and Metro Parkway East. Historical traffic data were obtained from City of Phoenix traffic counts, available on the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Transportation Data Management System2 and the City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department Traffic Volume Map.3

2 http://adot.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Adot&mod=

3 https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Documents/Traffic_Volumes.pdf


2.3.2 PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts

Turning movement counts (TMCs) for study intersections were obtained from three sources:

Metrocenter Traffic Impact Analysis (2013)

Traffic Research and Analysis Inc. (TRA) counts (2015)

HDR counts (2016)

The Metrocenter Traffic Impact Analysis4 documented traffic counts conducted at intersections around Metrocenter in 2013. These intersections include the I-17 interchanges and intersections along Metro Parkway East, which were used for this report. TRA, a traffic research company, obtained 3-hour PM peak hour TMCs in August 2015 for most other study intersections. In April and May 2016, HDR counted turning movements at Intersections 6, 8 and 9 (refer to the intersections in Figure 2). The 2013 and 2015 traffic counts were adjusted to 2016 using a 1 percent annual growth rate approved by the City of Phoenix. Figure 5 provides the 2016 PM peak hour turning movement counts derived from these volumes at existing study intersections. As expected, I-17 interchanges have higher volumes than other study intersections.

The 2015 TRA counts were taken before the opening of the Northwest Phase I Light Rail Extension and Dunlap Avenue PNR at the end of line. Traffic volumes were generated and distributed from the Dunlap Avenue PNR based on PNR use data from Valley Metro surveys; a 30 percent utilization rate and 5 percent drop-off rate were assumed. These volumes were included in the 2016 existing volumes. The Dunlap Avenue PNR peak hour volumes and trip distributions are in Table 4 and Figure 6.

4 Traffic Impact Study for Metrocenter PUE prepared by Baker


FIGURE 4: AVERAGE WEEKDAY 24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES


FIGURE 5: 2016 EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES – PM PEAK HOUR


TABLE 4: DUNLAP AVENUE PARK-AND-RIDE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

Volume Split Peak Hour

Vehicle Tripsa In/Out % In Vehicles

Out Vehicles

Park-and-ride 124 25%/75%a 31 93

Kiss-and-ride (drop-off only) 21 100%/100% 21 21

Total PM peak trips 145 — 52 114 a In accordance with Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual Dashes (—) denote not applicable.

FIGURE 6: PM PEAK HOUR DUNLAP AVENUE PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS


2.4 EXISTING TRANSIT

The regional transit system near the Build Alternative corridor, shown in Figure 7, consists of commuter bus, local bus and the end of line (19th Ave/Dunlap station) of the existing 23-mile light rail line that serves areas in Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa.

FIGURE 7: 2016 EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK


2.4.1 Bus

Two separate commuter services provide peak hour connections to Downtown Phoenix. Valley Metro operates peak period Express bus service between suburban communities and Downtown Phoenix, and the City of Phoenix operates RAPID bus service, which originates at dedicated PNR facilities within city boundaries and provides peak period service to Downtown Phoenix. Local bus service typically operates on arterial streets in a grid pattern and serves a range of local and regional travel needs.

The Build Alternative corridor is served by local routes on all arterial streets within the study area and by two commuter bus routes that use I-17. Although the Northwest Valley Express (Route 575) uses I-17 to travel between the Arrowhead Towne Center in Glendale and Downtown Phoenix, this express bus makes no stops in the study area. Local routes 27, 35, 90, 106 and the I-17 RAPID deviate to the current Metrocenter PNR on the southwestern corner of Metrocenter. Table 5 shows details of the bus transit routes within and around the study area.

TABLE 5: BUILD ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR BUS TRANSIT ROUTES

Route Corridor/Description Weekday Service Frequency (minutes)

Peak Off-peak

Local Bus

Route 19 19th Ave 12 15



Route 43 43rd Ave 15 30

Route 80 Northern Ave 15 30

Route 90 Dunlap Ave 15 30

Route 106 Peoria Ave 30 30

Route 122 Cactus Rd 30 30

RAPID Bus

I-17 RAPID Connects I-17 to Downtown Phoenix

10 Not applicable

Express Bus

Route 575 Northwest Valley Express 3 trips AM/ 3 trips PM

Not applicable

19th Ave or 35th Ave Bus Rapid Transita

To be determined To be determined To be determined

Source: Valley Metro, 2016–2017 Annual Ridership Report Note: I-17 = Interstate 17 a The Transportation 2050 plan identifies a new bus rapid transit route by fiscal year 2023 to serve the area between the Happy Valley Road Park-and-Ride and 27th Avenue/Baseline Road Park-and-Ride via either 19th or 35th Avenues. The specific route is yet to be determined.

2.4.2 Light Rail

Valley Metro Rail currently serves areas of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa. Figure 1 shows the light rail alignment in the Build Alternative study area. The current span of service is


from about 4 a.m. to midnight, with a frequency of service ranging from 12 to 20 minutes, depending on the time of day and day of the week.

2.5 EXISTING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS

Nonmotorized transportation is an integral component of existing and planned mobility in the Build Alternative corridor. The City of Phoenix and the local bike community have placed extreme importance on maintaining existing bicycle facilities and adding new ones. The proposed alignment crosses over the Arizona/Sun Circle Canal Trail, a multiuse path that connects Peoria, Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community alongside the Arizona Canal, a vital Maricopa County waterway. Portions of the Arizona Canal Trail are paved—such as the area near 25th Avenue—and some portions are unpaved. Additionally, bicycle lanes exist on both sides of 25th Avenue from Dunlap Avenue to Mountain View Road. Locations of existing bicycle lanes, routes and multi-use paths near the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension route are illustrated in Figure 8.

The existing marked bicycle lanes on 31st Avenue adjacent to the Metrocenter, 25th Avenue, 23rd Avenue, Mission Lane, Cheryl Drive and Butler Road from 23rd Avenue to I-17 are within the existing roadway; they are under the City’s jurisdiction and are designated for transportation use.5 The City of Phoenix has also designated 31st Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue and Butler Road east of 23rd Avenue and west of 31st Avenue as bicycle routes for transportation use. Bike routes are typically located on low traffic volume streets or on direct routes that bicyclists prefer.

5 Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, Final Draft Report, City of Phoenix Streets Transportation

Department, August 2014.


FIGURE 8: BICYCLE AND MULTIUSE FACILITIES

Source: City of Phoenix and MAG Bikeways map. Website accessed on March 11, 2018 at https://www.phoenix.gov/streets/safety-topics/bicycle-program/bicycle-safety/bike-map Note: path at southern end of RMSC is now paved and is reflected in the figure.


Table 6 shows 2016 pedestrian and bicycle counts along the proposed alignment.

TABLE 6: 2016 PM PEAK HOUR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COUNTS

Int. ID

Intersection

2016 Pedestrian Volume 2016 Bicycle

Volume

East Leg

West

Leg

North Leg

South Leg

EB WB NB SB

1 19th Ave and Dunlap Ave 28 50 30 55 0 0 4 0

2 C St and Dunlap Ave 1 0 13 14 0 0 0 0

3 23rd Ave and Dunlap Ave 23 13 14 14 0 0 2 0



6 Sheraton driveway and Dunlap Ave 0 1 6 13 1 1 3 3

7 I-17 and Dunlap Ave interchange 3 12 8 27 0 0 0 0

8 25th Ave and Mission Ln 2 0 1 0 4 4 1 1

9 25th Ave and Sheraton driveway 2 0 1 0 3 3 0 8

10 25th Ave and south canal pedestrian crossinga

— — — — — — — —

11 25th Ave and north canal pedestrian crossinga

— — — — — — — —

12 25th Ave and parking lot pedestrian crossinga

— — — — — — — —


0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0

14 25th Ave and Mountain View Rd 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 1

15 I-17 Frontage Rd and Cheryl Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Metro Pkwy and Cheryl Drive 3 6 2 2 — — — —

17 Metro Pkwy and proposed signala — — — — — — — —

18 I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Ave

0 4 4 16 — — 0 0

19 I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Ave

0 0 5 10 — — 0 0

a Intersection is proposed as part of the Build Alternative; therefore, there are no existing counts. Dashes (—) denote not applicable. Notes: EB = eastbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound

Pedestrian and bicycle counts for 2015 (PM peak) obtained by TRA in August 2015 and counts for 2016 (PM peak) obtained by HDR are presented in Table 6. Intersection numbers in Table 6 correspond to Figure 2, which shows the study intersections. Higher volumes of pedestrian activity were observed near the signalized intersections of 19th and Dunlap Avenues and 23rd and Dunlap Avenues. The pedestrian counts obtained by TRA were taken before the opening of the Northwest Phase I Light Rail Extension.


3.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

This section summarizes the traffic operations analysis conducted for the Build Alternative. The traffic analysis was conducted for PM peak hour traffic conditions at the study intersections (shown in Figure 2) for the following scenarios:

2016 Existing Conditions

No-Build Alternative

Build Alternative

The PM peak hour was selected for analysis because it is typically when the highest potential for congestion occurs, thus representing a worst-case scenario. The PM peak period is from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. This analysis documents and compares the impacts of each of the above scenarios based on the conceptual design available at this phase of the study.

3.1 METHODOLOGY

Traffic analysis of roadway and intersection operational performance for the study scenarios was performed using the Synchro/SimTraffic simulation analysis package (version 8, Build 803, revision 743) developed by Trafficware, Ltd. The software evaluates intersection delay and congestion based on procedures similar to those given in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, Chapters 18, 19 and 20). Basic inputs used for Synchro relate primarily to traffic data, including traffic volumes, lane geometry (that is, number of lanes, lane widths, turn-lane storage lengths and speed limits), signal timing data, peak hour factor, heavy vehicle traffic levels, on-street parking, bus blockage and a variety of other data items (see Appendix A for the Synchro assumptions).

It should be noted that Synchro is limited when assessing light rail operations. The Synchro model will consider light rail travels during the Dunlap Avenue (eastbound/westbound) and 25th Avenue (northbound/southbound) through traffic phase. City of Phoenix and Valley Metro staff agreed that this was sufficient for the study alternatives for this conceptual design phase so that the results could be compared with regard to overall intersection level of service (LOS) and delays. Analysis using more advanced traffic analysis software will be conducted during final design for the Build Alternative when the detailed traffic configurations are finalized.

The methodology used in this study was based on the 2010 HCM for determining the LOS for existing and future traffic conditions. The analysis results are expressed using LOS and intersection delay from Synchro HCM 2000 reports. The signal phasing at signalized intersections does not generate Synchro HCM 2010 reports.

LOS is a quantitative measure based on intersection delay and capacity. LOS is frequently expressed in qualitative terms as LOS A (free-flow) to LOS F (congested). Tables 7 and 8 provide LOS definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The “Description” column of each table qualitatively describes the perception of traffic conditions by motorists and passengers, while the “Average Delay” column quantitatively describes the number of seconds of delay per vehicle associated with each LOS.


TABLE 7: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION Level of Service

Description Average Delay

(seconds/vehicle)

A Operations with very little delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.

≤10

B Operations with little delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

>10–20

C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

>20–35

D

Operations with longer delay attributable to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

>35–55

E Operations with long delays, poor progression, long cycle lengths and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

>55–80

F Operations with delay unacceptable to most drivers occurring because of oversaturation, poor progression or very long cycle lengths.

>80

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010

TABLE 8: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION

Level of Service

Description Average Delay

(seconds/vehicle)

A Little or no delay 0–10

B Minor delay >10–15

C Average delay >15–25

D Moderate delay >25–35

E Lengthy delay >35–50

F Excessive delay >50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010

3.2 TRAFFIC DIVERSION CONSIDERATIONS

The MAG travel demand mode (TDM)l, which was used as an input for the traffic analysis, compared the Build Alternative and No-Build Alternative traffic volumes and determined that the impact along the streets that the light rail would traverse would be a very slight decrease in traffic volumes, specifically on Dunlap Avenue. Shifting from vehicles to light rail would also contribute to the anticipated decrease in traffic volumes.

Based on the MAG projections, any traffic diversions would be minimal, less than 10 vehicles in the PM peak. This minimal diversion could be to roadways adjacent to Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road where the light rail would travel. Traffic on Dunlap Avenue could divert primarily to Northern Avenue and to Peoria Avenue


which are surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. Traffic on 25th Avenue could be diverted to 24th Avenue or 23rd Avenue which is surrounded by commercial uses and apartments. The apartments have residential units that face inward toward an interior courtyard (that is, units do not face the street). Minimal (less than 10 vehicles in the PM peak) westbound right turn traffic could turn at 24th Avenue or 23rd Avenue to avoid light rail station and pedestrian activity at 25th Avenue during peak periods. Traffic on Mountain View Road could divert to adjacent local and access roads which are surrounded by commercial and industrial uses.

3.3 SPECIAL EVENTS

No major special events currently occur within the Build Alternative corridor. Therefore, this traffic analysis did not assess any special events as part of this study phase.

3.4 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROACH

This traffic analysis employed a conventional approach that included basic data collection efforts, investigation of existing roadway and traffic conditions and analysis of the above-mentioned study scenario operational impacts.

As mentioned previously, the study analyzed PM peak hour traffic conditions because the PM peak period would generate the most congested traffic conditions on a typical weekday.

3.4.1 Traffic Volumes

3.4.1.1 Existing Volume: Automobile, Pedestrian and Bicycle

Historical 24-hour traffic volumes and 2016 PM peak hour turning movement counts are summarized in Section 2.3 in Figures 4 and 5. As mentioned previously, for this study, traffic counts (automobile, pedestrian and bicycle) were obtained at all major study intersections in 2015 and 2016 with the exception of the I-17 interchanges and Metro Parkway East intersections, which were taken from the Metrocenter Traffic Impact Analysis. The 2013 and 2015 counts were grown to 2016 TMCs using a 1 percent annual growth rate approved by the City of Phoenix. These major and minor intersections include existing signalized intersections, others proposed for signalization and intersections that are pertinent to understanding how traffic moves in the study area.

It should be noted that the 2013 and 2015 TMCs were taken before the opening of the Northwest Phase I Extension. Because of this, traffic volume projections were developed at the Dunlap Avenue PNR and were included in the 2016 existing volumes.

3.4.1.2 No-Build Traffic Volumes: Automobile, Pedestrian and Bicycle

Development of the No-Build Alternative traffic volumes considered historic traffic counts, past and planned land use growth for Phoenix and a review of the TDM, which includes planned future development in the region. Various meetings with City of Phoenix Traffic Engineering and Valley Metro staff also helped develop the volumes. Based on these elements, it was agreed that a 1 percent annual growth rate would be used to develop all automobile, pedestrian and bicycle No-Build Alternative volumes.


The traffic volumes are projected to increase along the major arterial streets in the study area with no planned roadway improvements under the No-Build Alternative. Figure 9 summarizes the No-Build Alternative traffic volumes at the existing study intersections. The No-Build Alternative pedestrian and bicycle counts are summarized in Table 9.

3.4.1.3 Build Traffic Volumes: Automobile, Pedestrian and Bicycle

The TDM Build Alternative volumes include traffic diversion and the travel mode switch to light rail along Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road. Based on the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative MAG Regional TDM comparison, the impact of the Build Alternative is a very slight decrease in traffic volumes on the alignment corridors, specifically Dunlap Avenue. Because the decrease of volumes is small, a conservative approach of using the No-Build volumes as Build volumes was used. This was approved by City of Phoenix traffic staff. The proposed PNR trips from the Metrocenter and Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNRs were added to the Build Alternative volumes. The PNR trip generation and distribution is discussed in Section 4.3.

For the Build Alternative, new signalized intersections were included along the study corridor, as shown in Figure 2. Traffic volumes at these locations were adjusted and rebalanced to account for turning movement restriction changes required by the placement of the light rail guideway. Figure 10 illustrates the lane configuration and type of traffic control (for example, signals or stop-controlled) proposed at each study intersection under the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative traffic volumes/TMCs are shown in Figure 11.

The Build Alternative bicycle traffic is assumed to be the same as the No-Build Alternative bicycle traffic. For the Build Alternative pedestrian volumes, light rail passenger boarding and alighting projections at the proposed stations were obtained from the Federal Transit Administration STOPS program. Based on crosswalk locations near each proposed light rail station, the light rail passenger traffic was estimated and then added to the background No-Build Alternative pedestrian volumes as shown in Table 9. The Build Alternative pedestrian and bicycle counts are also shown in Table 9.

3.4.2 Roadway Geometry

Figures 3 and 10 show the complete roadway geometry, lane configurations and traffic controls that are found in the 2016 existing and Build Alternative scenarios, respectively. The No-Build Alternative scenario has the same configuration as the 2016 existing scenario.

The existing roadway geometry information, including lane configurations and turn lane storage lengths, was obtained from available base mapping, aerial surveys and field reviews. These data were used for the 2016 existing conditions and No-Build Alternative Synchro modeling.


FIGURE 9: NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES – PM PEAK HOUR


FIGURE 10: BUILD ALTERNATIVE LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL


FIGURE 11: BUILD ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES – PM PEAK HOUR


TABLE 9: NO-BUILD AND BUILD ALTERNATIVES PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUMES

Int. ID

Intersection

2040 Pedestrian Volume 2040 Bicycle Volume

East Leg West Leg North Leg South Leg EB WB NB SB

No-Build

Build No-

Build Build

No-Build

Build No-

Build Build

No-Build/Build

No-Build/Build

No-Build/Build

No-Build/Build

1 19th Ave and Dunlap Ave 34 34 60 60 36 36 66 66 0 2 5 0

2 C St and Dunlap Ave 1 1 0 0 16 16 17 17 0 1 0 0

3 23rd Ave and Dunlap Ave 28 28 16 16 17 17 17 17 0 1 2 0



6 I-17 and Dunlap Ave interchange

4 4 14 14 10 10 33 33 0 0 0 0

7 25th Ave and Mission Ln 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 6 1 1

8 25th Ave and Sheraton driveway

2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 12 0 10

9 25th Ave and 24th Ave 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 25th Ave and south canal pedestrian crossing

2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 2

11 25th Ave and north canal pedestrian crossing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 25th Ave and parking lot pedestrian crossing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0

14 25th Ave and Mountain View Rd

0 0 5 0 0 0 0 39 0 1 2 0

15 I-17 Frontage Rd and Cheryl Dr

2 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

16 Metro Pkwy and Cheryl Dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


TABLE 9: NO-BUILD AND BUILD ALTERNATIVES PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUMES

Int. ID

Intersection

2040 Pedestrian Volume 2040 Bicycle Volume

East Leg West Leg North Leg South Leg EB WB NB SB

No-Build

Build No-

Build Build

No-Build

Build No-

Build Build

No-Build/Build

No-Build/Build

No-Build/Build

No-Build/Build

17 Metro Pkwy and proposed signal

4 4 7 7 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0

18 I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Ave

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Ave

0 0 5 5 5 5 19 19 0 0 0 0

Notes: EB = eastbound, I-17 = Interstate 17, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound


For the Build Alternative, the roadway geometry, lane configurations and light rail stations used in Synchro were based on drawings provided/developed by HDR, dated November 2017. Based on these drawings, no major roadway lane configuration changes would occur to accommodate the Build Alternative.

The 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road intersection would be realigned under the Build Alternative, as shown in the November 2017 plan set. The realignment would close the existing driveway access to the Rose Mofford Sports Complex parking lot near the intersection and provide full access north of Mountain View Road. North and south of the 25th Avenue station, driveway access to the Rose Mofford Sports Complex parking lot would be controlled by new traffic signals.

One driveway on Dunlap Avenue between 23rd and 24th Avenues would be permanently closed as a result of the Build Alternative. With the proposed driveway closure on Dunlap Avenue, this business center can be accessed from 23rd and 24th Avenues and use Mission Lane to access 24th and 25th Avenues. This driveway is relatively steep and small cars may have the potential to “bottom out”. Closing the driveway could also provide the business with space for additional parking.

A new traffic signal would be placed at 25th Avenue and 24th Avenue with an exclusive southbound left-turn lane. At 25th Avenue and Mission Lane, the Build Alternative would also create an exclusive left-turn lane for southbound traffic. The 25th Avenue and Mission Lane configuration is shown in Figure 12.

In the Build Alternative, the light rail would operate in semi-exclusive ROW, separate from vehicular traffic with the exception of crossings at signal-protected intersections. In this alignment, motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles would cross the light rail tracks only at signalized intersections. The light rail would have traffic signal priority, similar to what exists on the current light rail line in Phoenix.

3.4.3 Design Speed

Vehicular speed limits used for the Synchro 2016 existing conditions, No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative scenarios are those that are currently posted along the planned Build Alternative corridor, as follows:

25 mph – Mountain View Road between 25th Avenue and I-17 frontage road

35 mph – 25th Avenue between Dunlap Avenue and Mountain View Road; Metro Parkway East between Cheryl Drive and the intersection before 27th Avenue

40 mph – Dunlap Avenue between I-17 and 19th Avenue

3.4.4 Signal Timing and Phasing

The existing signal timing and phasing information along the study corridor was provided by the City of Phoenix and was used for the 2016 scenario in Synchro. The signal timing information for the I-17 traffic interchanges at Dunlap and Peoria Avenues was provided by ADOT. For the No-Build Alternative scenario, signal timings were adjusted to optimize performance using the existing signal phasing.


FIGURE 12: 25TH AVENUE – EXCLUSIVE LEFT-TURN LANE

Light rail and vehicular north/south through movement on 25th Avenue.

Vehicular through and southbound left-turn movement on 25th Avenue.


For the Build Alternative, light rail operations, in general, would occur in the semi-exclusive ROW lanes along Dunlap Avenue and 25th Avenue and would operate with the through traffic phase of the existing signal system. At Mountain View Road, the train operations would transition to an exclusive, elevated structure to cross I-17. At a few locations, light rail operations would require new signals, new pedestrian signals and transit detection to allow signal phasing changes that enable the light rail priority at signalized locations. The City of Phoenix pedestrian clearance times are maintained at the existing traffic signals. The pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 feet per second, in accordance with the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, was used to calculate pedestrian clearance time at signals.

The existing light rail projects use a “predictive priority” signal detection system, which gives light rail priority over automobile/general purpose traffic. For the purposes of this traffic operations analysis, based on the limitations of Synchro to model light rail operations, light rail is considered to operate in coordination with general purpose traffic and, therefore, no light rail input into Synchro was considered. As discussed earlier, more sophisticated software will be used to model traffic and light rail operations in the final design/next phase for the proposed project.

New traffic controls, which include traffic signals and pedestrian signals, are proposed at the existing unsignalized study area intersections on Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue, Mountain View Road and Metro Parkway East under the Build Alternative to help the neighborhood and commercial access traffic flow (ingress and egress). These intersections, with numbers that correspond to the study intersections in Figure 2, are:

4 – 24th and Dunlap Avenues

7 – 25th Avenue and Mission Lane

9 – 25th Avenue and 24th Avenue

10 – 25th Avenue and south canal pedestrian crossing

11 – 25th Avenue and north canal pedestrian crossing

12 – 25th Avenue and parking lot pedestrian crossing

13 – 25th Avenue and Black Canyon Conference Center driveway

14 – 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road

17 – Metro Parkway East and proposed signal at new Metrocenter PNR driveway

Of the intersections listed above, the new pedestrian signals at the following intersections enhance safety and pedestrian access to light rail stations. The pedestrian signals are required, in accordance with the Valley Metro design criteria:

4 – 24th and Dunlap Avenues

12 – 25th Avenue and parking lot pedestrian crossing

13 – 25th Avenue and Black Canyon Conference Center driveway


3.4.5 Transit Input

Transit operations will affect traffic flow and are coded into Synchro. Bus operations, headways and bus stops are coded into Synchro based on existing and proposed transit plans.

3.5 TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSIS RESULTS

The LOS was calculated using the data inputs discussed in Sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.5. Table 10 provides the overall PM peak hour average intersection LOS and delay for the 2016 existing, No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative.

3.5.1 2016 Existing

Based on these results, in the 2016 existing conditions all study intersections operate at LOS D or better with existing signal timing, with the exception of the following intersections, which operate at LOS F:

6 – Dunlap Avenue and I-17 interchange

19 – I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Avenue

These intersections currently experience long queues from traffic merging onto I-17 in the PM peak period. Based on field observations just east of the Dunlap Avenue and I-17 interchange, the queues can become long enough in the PM peak period to interfere with neighboring intersections such as 25th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue. Intersections 6 and 19 operated at LOS F in 2013, according to the Metrocenter Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 10 summarizes the study intersection operations under 2016 existing conditions.

3.5.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would result in LOS E conditions or better at all study intersections, with the exception of the following intersections, which would operate at LOS F:


18 – I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Avenue


Some of the unsignalized intersections would experience slightly higher delays along the side street and driveway approaches as they wait for traffic gaps along 25th Avenue under the No-Build Alternative than with existing 2016 conditions. Table 10 summarizes the study intersection operations under the No-Build Alternative and includes the side street highest approach delay at these unsignalized intersections.

Seven intersections would degrade in approach or intersection LOS between the 2016 existing and the No-Build conditions:

1 – 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue




7 – 25th Avenue and Mission Lane

8 – 25th Avenue and Sheraton driveway

14 – 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road


3.5.3 Build Alternative

Similar to the No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative would operate at LOS E or better at all the study intersections with optimized signal timing with the exception of the following:




The LOS results for the Build Alternative can be found in Table 10. When comparing the Build Alternative with the No-Build Alternative, the unsignalized intersection side street and driveway approaches on 25th Avenue that were experiencing delays under the No-Build Alternative would have an improved LOS in the Build Alternative from signalization of these approaches.


While Intersection 16 meets the requirements for additional mitigation, the City of Phoenix has accepted the configuration proposed under the Build Alternative. In consultation, City of Phoenix staff noted that LOS C is an acceptable LOS. Much of the traffic using this intersection would be city buses and users of the PNR and transit center as a result of the Build Alternative. Further, since Metro Parkway is a minor arterial providing access to Metrocenter and surrounding properties, City of Phoenix staff said that additional delays at this intersection would not adversely affect regional mobility.


TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – 2016 EXISTING, NO-BUILD AND BUILD

Int. IDa

Intersection Name

2016 Existing 2040 No-Build 2040 Build

Intersection Delay

(seconds) LOS

Intersection Delay

(seconds) LOS

Intersection Delay (seconds)

LOS

1 19th Ave and Dunlap Ave 49 D 56 E 56 E

2 C St and Dunlap Ave 14 B 13 B 18 B

3 23rd Ave and Dunlap Ave 29 C 34 C 31 C

4 24th Ave and Dunlap Ave 17b Cb 32b Db 16 B

5 25th Ave and Dunlap Ave 20 B 24 C 26 C

6 I-17 and Dunlap Ave interchange 115 F 167 F 175 F

7 25th Ave and Mission Ln 16b Cb 27b Db 19 C

8 25th Ave and Sheraton driveway 19b Cb 31b Db 18b Cb

9 25th Ave and 24th Ave 11b Bb 13b Bb 15 B

10 25th Ave and south canal pedestrian crossing — — — — 4 A

11 25th Ave and north canal pedestrian crossing — — — — 3 A

12 25th Ave and parking lot pedestrian crossing — — — — 4 A


12b Bb 13b Bb 13 A

14 25th Ave and Mountain View Rd 13b Bb 16b Cb 18 B

15 I-17 Frontage Rd and Cheryl Dr 9b Ab 10b Ab 10b Bb

16 Metro Pkwy and Cheryl Dr 7 A 7 A 21 C

17 Metro Pkwy and proposed signal — — — — 6 A

18 I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Ave 48 D 113 F 120 F

19 I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Ave 121 F 195 F 213 F

Notes: Level of service from HCM2000 Synchro reports. Dashes (—) denote not applicable. I-17 = Interstate 17, LOS = level of service a Corresponds to numbered intersections in Figure 2. b Unsignalized intersection approach with highest delay and corresponding approach LOS.


3.5.3.1 Build Alternative Analysis Results Comparison with No-Build Alternative and 2016 Existing Conditions

This section describes the differences at each signalized intersection in terms of LOS and intersection delay between the Build Alternative when compared to the 2016 existing conditions and when compared to the No-Build Alternative, as seen in Table 10.

Differences between Build Alternative and 2016 Existing Conditions

Compared to 2016 existing conditions, none of the Build Alternative intersections have better or same LOS and same or less delay.

The Build Alternative has the same LOS and more delay compared to the 2016 existing conditions at the following intersections:

2 – C Street and Dunlap Avenue, LOS B

3 – 23rd Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS C

6 – Dunlap Avenue and I-17 interchange, LOS F

19 – I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Avenue, LOS F

The Build Alternative has worse LOS and more delay compared to the 2016 existing conditions at the following intersections:

1 – 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS D in 2016 conditions to LOS E with Build Alternative

5 – 25th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS B in 2016 conditions to LOS C with Build Alternative

16 – Metro Parkway East and Cheryl Drive, LOS A in 2016 conditions to LOS C with Build Alternative

18 – I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Avenue, LOS D in 2016 conditions to LOS F with Build Alternative

Differences between Build Alternative and No-Build Alternative

Compared to No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative has the same LOS and same or less delay at the following intersections:

1 – 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS E in No-Build and Build Alternatives

3 – 23rd Ave and Dunlap Avenue, LOS C in No-Build and Build Alternatives

The Build Alternative has the same LOS and more delay compared to the No-Build Alternative at the following intersections:

2 – C Street and Dunlap Avenue, LOS B in No-Build and Build Alternatives

5 – 25th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS C in No-Build and Build Alternatives

6 – Dunlap Avenue and I-17 Interchange, LOS F in No-Build and Build Alternatives


18 – I-17 southbound off ramp and Peoria Avenue, LOS F in No-Build and Build Alternatives

19 – I-17 northbound off ramp and Peoria Avenue, LOS F in No-Build and Build Alternatives

The Build Alternative traffic volumes are heavier than the No-Build Alternative at 25th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, Dunlap Avenue and I-17 Interchange and Peoria Avenue and I-17 Interchange. This is caused by increased traffic at these locations coming to the proposed park-and-ride facilities which results in an increased delay.

In addition to the pedestrian crossings at the existing signalized intersections, the Build Alternative proposes new signalized pedestrian crossings at proposed light rail stations and proposed traffic signals which will help improve mobility and safety for pedestrian traffic along the light rail corridor.

The Build Alternative has worse LOS and more delay compared to the No-Build Alternative at the following intersection:

16 – Metro Parkway East and Cheryl Drive, operates at LOS A with No-Build Alternative versus LOS C with Build Alternative. The increased delay is attributable to relocating the transit center operations and the proposed park-and-ride.

Unsignalized Intersections

The minor unsignalized street intersections that would experience longer delays on side streets with the No-Build Alternative would be signalized in the Build Alternative. A total of nine intersections would be signalized as part of the Build Alternative. Their locations are shown as green dots in Figure 2. These intersections would operate at LOS D or better in the Build Alternative.

With the new traffic control associated with the Build Alternative, the following intersections operate at the same or better LOS and have less intersection delay than the unsignalized approach LOS and delay under the 2016 existing conditions:

4 – 24th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS B with Build Alternative versus LOS C in 2016 conditions

8 – 25th Avenue and Mission Lane, LOS B with Build Alternative versus LOS C in 2016 conditions

13 – 25th Avenue and Black Canyon Conference Center driveway, LOS A with Build Alternative versus LOS B in 2016 conditions

The Build Alternative has the same or worse LOS and more intersection delay than the unsignalized approach LOS and delay under the 2016 existing conditions at the following intersections:

7 – 25th Avenue and Mission Lane, LOS C with Build Alternative and 2016 conditions

9 – 25th Avenue and 24th Avenue, LOS B with Build Alternative and 2016 conditions


14 – 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road, LOS B with Build Alternative and 2016 conditions

15 – Cheryl Drive and I-17 frontage road*, LOS B with Build Alternative and LOS A with 2016 conditions

With the new traffic control associated with the Build Alternative, the following intersections operate at the same or better LOS and have the same or less intersection delay than the unsignalized approach LOS and delay under the No-Build Alternative at the following intersections:

4 – 24th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue, LOS B with Build Alternative and LOS D in No-Build Alternative

7 – 25th Avenue and Mission Lane, LOS C with Build Alternative and LOS D in No-Build Alternative

8 – 25th Avenue and Sheraton Driveway,6 LOS C with Build Alternative and LOS D in No-Build Alternative

13 – 25th Avenue and Black Canyon Conference Center driveway, LOS A with Build Alternative and LOS B in No-Build Alternative

The Build Alternative has a better LOS and the same intersection delay than the unsignalized approach LOS and delay under the No-Build Alternative at the following intersection:

14 – 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road, operates at a LOS C for the No-Build alternative and LOS B in the Build Alternative

The Build Alternative has the same or worse LOS and more or the same intersection delay than the unsignalized approach LOS and delay under the No-Build Alternative at the following intersections:

9 – 25th Avenue and 24th Avenue, LOS B with Build and No-Build Alternatives

15 – Cheryl Drive and I-17 frontage road,7 LOS B with Build Alternative and LOS A with No-Build Alternative

3.5.4 Mitigation

The City of Phoenix provided the following criteria to determine what constitutes an impact at an intersection and would require mitigation:

For LOS A through D, if the Build Alternative maintains the same or improved LOS compared with the No-Build Alternative, it is not an adverse impact. However, if the Build Alternative LOS degrades below that of the No-Build Alternative, delays of greater than 5 percent would be considered an adverse impact and would require mitigation.

6 Remains unsignalized in Build Alternative.

7 Remains unsignalized in Build Alternative.


For LOS E, the delay for the Build Alternative must be greater than 5 percent compared with the No-Build Alternative to be considered an adverse impact. Mitigation would be required for the adverse impact.

LOS F would typically be considered an adverse impact and would require mitigation.

Intersection 18 operates at LOS D in 2016 existing conditions. Intersections 6 and 19 operate at LOS F in 2016 existing conditions. No mitigation at these locations is proposed as part of this project because ADOT, MAG and the City of Phoenix will address traffic congestion at these intersections through improvements planned as part of the Spine Study: Interstate 10 and Interstate 17 Corridor Master Plan.


While Intersection 16 meets the requirements for additional mitigation, the City of Phoenix has accepted the configuration proposed under the Build Alternative. In consultation, City of Phoenix staff noted that LOS C is an acceptable LOS. Much of the traffic using this intersection would be city buses and users of the PNR and transit center as a result of the Build Alternative. Further, since Metro Parkway is a minor arterial providing access to Metrocenter and surrounding properties, City of Phoenix staff said that additional delays at this intersection would not adversely affect regional mobility. Therefore, based on the City of Phoenix acceptable intersection performance criteria and discussions with City of Phoenix traffic staff, no intersections would require mitigation under the Build Alternative.

4.0 IMPACTS TO PARKING

4.1 ON-STREET PARKING IMPACTS


The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts to on-street parking because there is no on-street parking in the Build Alternative corridor and because it would not involve roadway geometry changes or construction of new or demolition of existing parking facilities.


The Build Alternative would have no impacts to on-street parking because there is no on-street parking in the corridor and because it would not involve roadway geometry changes or construction of new or demolition of existing parking facilities.

4.1.3 Mitigation

Because no impacts to on-street parking would occur, no mitigation is needed.


4.2 OFF-STREET PARKING IMPACTS


The No-Build Alternative would have no adverse impact on off-street parking because it would not involve roadway geometry changes or construction of new or demolition of existing parking facilities.


Off-street parking for commercial businesses is prevalent along the Build Alternative alignment. The locations described below would have partial ROW acquisitions for this project that would affect off-street parking. Figure 13 illustrates the estimated parking spaces removed by parcel for the Build Alternative and provides the percentage of total spaces removed from each parcel.

Approximately 435 parking stalls are anticipated to be removed along the Build Alternative, 386 of which would be at the proposed Metrocenter PNR. The individual tenants at Metrocenter do not have specific parking requirements, rather, Metrocenter as a whole has a parking requirement. That is because all parking at Metrocenter is for all patrons regardless of which store they are shopping at. Although 386 parking spaces (5.6 percent) would be lost as a result of the Build Alternative, Metrocenter currently has 6,924 spaces available to all stores/shoppers in the mall. Even with the loss of parking Metrocenter would exceed the City of Phoenix’s parking requirements (6149 parking spaces). Currently, Metrocenter has a high vacancy rate, and parking is sufficient during the holidays.

The property on the western side of I-17 (parcel 149-16-386, Black Angus Steakhouse) would lose approximately 5 parking spaces, or 4.1 percent of the property’s 123 parking spaces. The loss of 5 parking spaces is not anticipated to result in an adverse effect.


FIGURE 13: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS REMOVED, BY PARCEL

Notes: ROW takes and number of parking stalls removed are estimates based on the November 2017 plan set.


The property on the northern side of Mountain View Road and adjacent to the northbound I-17 frontage road (parcel 149-09-005D—Outback Steakhouse) would lose approximately 14 parking spaces, or 13.2 percent of the property’s 106 parking stalls This property has more spaces than required according to the City of Phoenix’s parking requirements; therefore, the loss of these 14 spaces would not result in an adverse. The other property on the northern side of Mountain View Road and east of I-17 (parcel 149-09-001R) would lose approximately 18 parking spaces, or 3.4 percent of the property’s 532 parking spaces. The loss of 18 spaces is not anticipated to result in an adverse effect.

The property at the southwestern corner of 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road (parcel 149-12-004P) would lose approximately 9 parking stalls, or 2.1 percent of the property’s 439 parking stalls. The loss of 9 stalls is not anticipated to result in an adverse effect.

The property at the northeastern corner of Dunlap and 25th Avenues would lose approximately 58 parking stalls, or 13.7 percent of the property’s 422 parking stalls. However, the parking area surrounding the front of the building will be reconfigured to gain 55 parking stalls back. This will reduce the overall parking loss to only 3 stalls or 0.7 percent. With the implementation of mitigation, no adverse effect is anticipated.

4.2.3 Mitigation

Approximately 478 off-street parking spaces would be removed at several locations along the proposed light rail alignment. Mitigation measures for those parking losses requiring mitigation are discussed below:

During final design when ROW negotiations begin, the City of Phoenix and Valley Metro would discuss with the current owners of the property on the northeastern corner of 25th and Dunlap Avenues potential options to reconfigure their parking lot to restore or mitigate lost parking resulting from the Build Alternative. An option is to convert some of the existing parking fronting Dunlap Avenue to compact parking spaces (that is, the length of the existing parking spaces would be reduced by the Build Alternative, thus converting the parking spaces to compact only) and adding approximately three parallel parking spaces adjacent to 25th Avenue. Preliminary investigation indicates the loss of parking could be minimized by reconfiguring the existing parking lot.

Valley Metro would add 146 parking spaces to the Rose Mofford Sports Complex to offset projected PNR demand.

With implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above, no adverse effects are anticipated to off-street parking.

4.3 PARK-AND-RIDES

4.3.1 No Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no adverse impacts on existing PNRs. No PNRs are proposed in the No-Build Alternative.



The Build Alternative consists of a surface lot at the end of line at Metrocenter and an additional shared parking lot with Rose Mofford Sports Complex on 25th Avenue. At Rose Mofford Sports Complex, 146 parking spaces would be added to the existing facility. The estimated parking capacity at these locations for the PNR would be approximately 260 and 146 stalls, respectively.

The Build Alternative TDM projections used for the traffic analysis did not include vehicular trips for the above PNRs. Therefore, a separate traffic assessment was conducted to account for the trip generation from the PNRs.

The PNR assessment used results from the 2013 Valley Metro Park-and-Ride survey along with Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) to determine the PM peak trip generation and distribution. PNRs with similar characteristics to the Metrocenter and Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNRs were compared. Based on these comparisons, it was assumed that the Metrocenter PNR would have a 60 percent utilization rate and 10 percent drop-off rate. For the analysis, 260 stalls were assumed at the Metrocenter PNR and 150 stalls were assumed at the Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNR. An additional 33 spaces would be added to the Rose Mofford Sports Complex dog park, but would not be part of the proposed PNR. The Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNR was assumed to have the same 60 percent utilization and 10 percent drop-off rate as the Metrocenter PNR. The Metrocenter PNR is assumed to have 182 PM peak hour trips while the Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNR is assumed to have 146 PM peak hour trips. These volumes can be seen in Table 11.

TABLE 11: PARK-AND-RIDE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

Volume Split Peak Hour

Vehicle Tripsa In/Out % In Vehicles

Out Vehicles

Metrocenter – 260 Parking Spaces

Park-and-ride 156 25%/75%a 39 117


Total PM peak trips 182 — 65 143

Rose Mofford Sports Complex – 150 Parking Spaces

Park-and-ride 90 25%/75%a 23 68


Total PM peak trips 121 — 38 83

Note: Dashes (—) denote not applicable. a According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual

Using current volumes and engineering judgment, the trips into and out of the PNRs were distributed via the proposed PNR entrances and exits (as shown on the September 2016 plan set). The Metrocenter PNR would have three access points for vehicles to enter, and the proposed transit center would have two access points as shown on the September 2016 plan set. Figure 14 shows the bus routes and their circulation at the proposed transit center. The Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNR would also have two access points for vehicles to enter and exit, both of which would be on the western side of the Rose Mofford Sports Complex PNR.


The assumed trip distribution at the PNRs can be found in Figures 15 and 16. These volumes were included in the Build Alternative total traffic volumes and TMCs found in Figure 11.

FIGURE 14: PM PEAK HOUR METROCENTER PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS

Notes: Route 27 – Both directions travel through Metro Pkwy from Peoria Ave to Dunlap Ave or vice versa Route 35 – Both directions enter and exit on Cheryl Dr counterclockwise loop on Metro Pkwy Route 90 – Both directions enter and exit from Dunlap Ave Route 106 – Both directions enter and exit from Peoria Ave Southbound Rapid and Bus Rapid Transit – Board along Interstate 17 frontage road Northbound Rapid and Bus Rapid Transit – Travel through from Dunlap Ave to Peoria Ave


FIGURE 15: PM PEAK HOUR METROCENTER PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS


FIGURE 16: PM PEAK HOUR ROSE MOFFORD PNR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS

The demand analysis found that the numbers of spaces proposed for each PNR lot is sufficient to accommodate demand. Additionally, ample Metrocenter parking exists to accommodate all shoppers, even during the holidays, and Rose Mofford Sports Complex users would benefit from the addition of 146 shared spaces. For the transit user, sharing the 146 spaces with recreational users could result in times when parking for transit users is limited; however, this is not expected to occur often since the times when the most recreation users are at the sports complex are oftentimes the opposite of when transit users would ride the light rail. Therefore, the Build Alternative is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact on existing Metrocenter and Rose Mofford Sports Complex parking facilities to accommodate the proposed PNR facilities on the same site.


4.3.3 Mitigation

Valley Metro would add 179 parking spaces to the Rose Mofford Sports Complex to offset projected PNR demand.

5.0 IMPACTS TO ON-STREET LOADING ZONES


The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts to on-street loading zones because no on-street loading zones exist along the corridor.


The Build Alternative would have no impacts to on-street loading zones because no on-street loading zones exist along the corridor.

5.3 MITIGATION

Because the Build Alternative would have no impact to on-street loading zones, no mitigation is required.

6.0 IMPACTS TO PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

Continuous pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and crosswalks) exist along each side of Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue and Mountain View Road. These facilities appear to be adequately designed and code-compliant, although this study has not inventoried sidewalk width, curb ramp compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards or sidewalk capacity.

Continuous, striped bicycle lanes exist on the Build Alternative alignment on both sides of 25th Avenue. No other locations along the alignment have bicycle lanes. However, the Arizona Canal Trail that intersects the alignment facilitates bicycle and pedestrian movement across 25th Avenue.


All of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be preserved and maintained under the No-Build Alternative. No planned developments, roadway geometry changes or construction activity would affect the pedestrian and bicycle facilities.


6.2.1 Pedestrian Facilities

For the Build Alternative, the existing pedestrian facilities would be upgraded or maintained. Upgrades may include pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian push buttons, crosswalks and other ADA-compliant improvements along Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue, Mountain View Road and study intersections that are affected by the Build Alternative. Additionally, pedestrian signals would be added at all proposed signalized intersections near light rail stations as shown in Figure 3.


Through the Build Alternative, pedestrian access to the Metrocenter station would be enhanced with the addition of signalized pedestrian crossings at Intersection 17, Metro Parkway East and the proposed signal north of Cheryl Drive. At the Rose Mofford Sports Complex, a sidewalk would be relocated approximately 20 feet east of the proposed dog park parking lot. The actuated pedestrian signals and pedestrian push buttons at Intersection 17 (Metro Parkway) and other signalized intersections would benefit pedestrian traffic operations and safety along the Build Alternative alignment. Therefore, the Build Alternative would have no adverse impact on pedestrian facilities and would be beneficial to pedestrians using the improved facilities.

6.2.2 Bicycle Facilities

The Build Alternative would retain the existing lengths of bicycle lanes, add new bicycle lanes on Mountain View Road and provide for safe crossing at the canal trails along the alignment. Therefore, the Build Alternative would benefit the bicycle community and is consistent with the City of Phoenix’s desire to create a multimodal community that accommodates the bicycle community.

For the Build Alternative, the mileage of continuous striped bicycle facilities in the project corridor would increase from what currently exists. Approximately 1,730 feet (0.3 mile) of new bicycle lanes would be added to each side of Mountain View Road at grade for an estimated total of 3,460 feet, or 0.6 mile, of new bicycle lanes. The bicycle lane on the eastern side of 25th Avenue would be located between the automobile travel lanes and the light rail guideway. In addition, the Arizona Canal/Sun Circle Trail crossing on 25th Avenue would be signalized to allow for safer pedestrian and bicycle movements across the light rail transit guideway.

The changes to the bicycle lanes discussed above would have no adverse impact on bicyclists and would provide an overall benefit to bicyclists.

6.2.3 Mitigation

The Build Alternative would have no adverse impact on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, therefore, no mitigation is required.

7.0 IMPACTS TO TRANSIT


There are no changes to light rail transit operations for the No-Build Alternative compared with the 2016 existing conditions because no planned route changes or construction activity would affect transit operations.

In the transportation study area, changes in frequency of service would affect Valley Metro bus routes under the No-Build Alternative compared with the 2016 existing conditions. These changes are planned to be implemented by 2040 and are independent of the Build Alternative. The route frequency changes can be seen in Table 12, along with the Build Alternative changes.



The differences in transit service between the Build and No-Build Alternatives include the addition of the Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension and the rerouting of bus routes that serve the current Metrocenter transit center on the southwestern corner of Metrocenter to the future Metrocenter PNR that would be on the northeastern corner of Metrocenter near the light rail station. The route frequency changes are the same for both the No-Build and Build Alternatives (Table 12).

In summary, the Build Alternative would have no adverse impact on transit. Travel times through the Build Alternative corridor are likely to be faster than the No-Build Alternative because of implementation of priority signaling for light rail. The Build Alternative would provide a new, convenient and reliable transit option for passengers living and working in the Build Alternative study area and would enhance regional transit connectivity and access.

TABLE 12: 2016 EXISTING AND NO-BUILD/BUILD TRANSIT OPERATIONS

Route Corridor/Description

Weekday Service Frequency by Direction (minutes)

2016 Existing 2040 No-Build

and Build Alternatives

Peak Off-peak Peak Off-Peak

Local Bus

Route 19 19th Ave 15 20 15 20

Route 27 27th Ave 30 30 15 30

Route 35 35th Ave 15 30 15 30

Route 43 43rd Ave 30 30 30 30

Route 80 Northern Ave 30 30 30 30

Route 90 Dunlap Ave 30 30 15 30

Route 106 Peoria Ave 30 30 30 30

Route 122 Cactus Rd 60 60 30 60

RAPID Bus

I-17 RAPID Connects I-17 to Downtown Phoenix

10 Not applicable

10–20 Not applicable

Express Bus

Route 575 Northwest Valley Express

3 trips AM/ 3 trips PM

Not applicable

3 trips AM/ 3 trips PM

Not applicable

Source: Valley Metro, 2015 data Note: I-17 = Interstate 17

7.3 MITIGATION

No adverse impact on transit is anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is required.


8.0 IMPACTS TO TRUCK ROUTES

According to the City of Phoenix Digest of Truck Route Ordinances,8 all arterial streets in Phoenix are designated truck routes. Therefore, Dunlap Avenue in the Build Alternative study area is designated as a truck route.


No adverse impacts are anticipated to existing truck routes along the project corridor because there are no anticipated changes to roadway geometry or construction activity.


Although Dunlap Avenue is an arterial and, therefore, a truck route, through access is still provided along the alignment. Full U-turn movements would also be allowed at all signalized intersections along Dunlap Avenue. Therefore, no adverse impacts on truck routes would result from the Build Alternative.

8.3 MITIGATION

Because the Build Alternative would have no adverse impacts on truck routes, no mitigation would be required.

9.0 IMPACTS ANTICIPATED DURING CONSTRUCTION – MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC


No impacts are anticipated to the roadway segments along the project corridor.


Construction of the Build Alternative would include a number of elements including utility relocation, roadway improvements and light rail track and station construction. These construction elements would affect and create disruptions to automobile, bus, pedestrian and bicycle operations. These construction elements are temporary and, once completed, traffic control would be restored to normal conditions.

In general, maintenance of traffic (automobile, bus, pedestrian and bicycle) facilities would require a traffic control plan to be developed during final design when detailed project design, including roadway configuration, is completed and specific plans to accommodate construction in this suburban environment are developed. The plan would be developed in accordance with City of Phoenix and federal guidelines to minimize impacts to traffic and maintain access to local streets as well as residences, businesses, community facilities and services. The traffic control plan would include:

Measures to maintain a minimum of one traffic lane in each direction on Dunlap Avenue, 25th Avenue, Mountain View Road, Metro Parkway East, I-17, I-17 frontage roads and intersecting streets where construction activities are required. There may

8 https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Documents/truckmap.pdf


be short-duration (weekend) full closures for construction of trackwork at intersections. Evaluation of such full closures versus longer construction in stages at each intersection would occur during final design as specific plans for construction are developed.

Temporary closures of sidewalks and crosswalks are possible during construction. Detours would be established and signs would be provided to safely guide pedestrians along detour routes until the sidewalks and crosswalks are restored in accordance with ADA accessibility guidelines.

Temporary closures of bicycle lanes may be required. Detours would be established to safely guide bicyclists along detour routes. Proper way finding signs and pavement markings would be used to guide bicyclists through detours along temporary routes.


APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS – SYNCHRO REPORTS

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: 19th Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/1/2017

NW Phase 2 LRT Extension 4:30 pm 7/29/2015 Existing 2016 _Oct2017 Rev Synchro 8 Report

HDR Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 145 632 78 58 955 130 160 356 21 104 195 139

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5072 1405 1770 3525 1480 1770 4980 3433 4599

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5072 1405 1770 3525 1480 1770 4980 3433 4599

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Growth Factor (vph) 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101%

Adj. Flow (vph) 159 694 86 64 1048 143 176 391 23 114 214 153

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 30 0 4 0 0 91 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 694 60 64 1048 113 176 410 0 114 276 0

Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 28 50 50 28 30 55 55 30

Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 4

Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 4 4

Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA

Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8

Permitted Phases 6 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 106.5 106.5 12.1 96.7 96.7 23.5 28.4 11.5 16.4

Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 106.5 106.5 12.1 96.7 96.7 23.5 28.4 11.5 16.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.09

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 209 2919 808 115 1842 773 224 764 213 407

v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.14 0.04 c0.30 c0.10 0.08 0.03 c0.06

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.08

v/c Ratio 0.76 0.24 0.07 0.56 0.57 0.15 0.79 0.54 0.54 0.68

Uniform Delay, d1 79.0 19.3 17.4 83.8 30.0 22.8 78.3 72.2 84.2 81.7

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 15.0 0.2 0.2 5.7 1.3 0.4 16.4 0.7 2.6 4.4

Delay (s) 94.0 19.5 17.6 89.6 31.3 23.2 94.7 73.0 86.7 86.2

Level of Service F B B F C C F E F F

Approach Delay (s) 31.9 33.3 79.4 86.3

Approach LOS C C E F

Intersection Summary

HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 185.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.5

Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.0% ICU Level of Service E

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group


2: C Street & Dunlap Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 2


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 15 825 28 36 1231 19 56 1 58 8 1 10

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.97

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.86

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5047 1770 3516 1733 1462 1452 1731 1558

Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 246 5047 476 3516 1367 1462 1452 1339 1558



Adj. Flow (vph) 16 906 31 40 1351 21 61 1 64 9 1 11



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 13 14 14 13

Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1

Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA

Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8

Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 73.2 70.7 78.8 73.5 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2

Effective Green, g (s) 73.2 70.7 78.8 73.5 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.59 0.66 0.61 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 2973 369 2153 344 367 365 336 392

v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.19 c0.00 c0.39 0.01 0.00

v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.07 c0.04 0.01 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.11 0.64 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01

Uniform Delay, d1 11.6 12.4 7.6 14.8 35.2 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.7

Progression Factor 0.60 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Delay (s) 7.2 6.7 7.8 16.2 35.4 33.8 33.8 34.0 33.7

Level of Service A A A B D C C C C

Approach Delay (s) 6.7 16.0 34.6 33.8

Approach LOS A B C C


HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B



Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B




3: 23rd Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 3


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 32 747 272 71 1205 12 268 73 84 39 70 81

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4780 1767 3516 1751 1680 1734 1863 1525

Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 282 4780 393 3516 977 1680 1184 1863 1525



Adj. Flow (vph) 35 820 299 78 1323 13 294 80 92 43 77 89



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 13 13 23 14 14 14 14

Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm

Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 8

Permitted Phases 2 6 4 8 8




Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 3031 342 2288 267 343 101 159 130

v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.23 c0.01 c0.38 c0.10 0.08 0.04

v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.15 c0.13 0.04 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.15 0.36 0.23 0.58 1.10 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 10.4 6.1 11.8 46.7 41.2 52.0 52.3 50.4



Delay (s) 7.8 8.4 11.3 19.6 131.6 41.9 54.9 54.6 50.6

Level of Service A A B B F D D D D

Approach Delay (s) 8.4 19.1 98.5 53.0

Approach LOS A B F D


HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C



Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D



HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Private Dr/24th Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 4


Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 12 1024 11 4 1552 11 7 1 7 1 0 29

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 1124 12 4 1704 12 8 1 8 1 0 32

Pedestrians 4 5

Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0

Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0

Percent Blockage 0 0

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type TWLTL TWLTL

Median storage veh) 2 2

Upstream signal (ft) 720 587

pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.95 0.80 0.80 0.95 0.80 0.80 0.78

vC, conflicting volume 1716 1136 2053 2881 386 2133 2881 862

vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1157 1157 1719 1719

vC2, stage 2 conf vol 897 1725 414 1163

vCu, unblocked vol 1346 953 1434 2466 162 1534 2466 247

tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9

tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 97 99 97 99 99 99 100 95

cM capacity (veh/h) 394 680 222 133 807 119 142 583

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1

Volume Total 13 450 450 237 4 1136 580 16 33

Volume Left 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 1

Volume Right 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 8 32

cSH 394 1700 1700 1700 680 1700 1700 314 516

Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.01 0.67 0.34 0.05 0.06

Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5

Control Delay (s) 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 17.1 12.5

Lane LOS B B C B

Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 17.1 12.5

Approach LOS C B


Average Delay 0.3




5: 25th Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 5


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 157 941 31 10 1541 55 44 35 22 133 0 448

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.97

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5072 1493 1757 5038 1754 1740 1756 1464 1464

Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 156 5072 1493 490 5038 529 1740 1325 1464 1464



Adj. Flow (vph) 172 1033 34 11 1692 60 48 38 24 146 0 492



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 10 10 9 11 6 6 11

Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1

Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm

Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 8

Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 88.6 88.6 88.6 72.7 72.7 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1

Effective Green, g (s) 88.6 88.6 88.6 72.7 72.7 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.61 0.61 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 281 3744 1102 296 3052 88 291 221 245 245

v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.20 0.35 0.02 0.06

v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.02 0.02 0.09 c0.11 0.06

v/c Ratio 0.61 0.28 0.02 0.04 0.57 0.55 0.14 0.66 0.36 0.36

Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 5.2 4.2 9.5 14.3 45.8 42.6 46.8 44.3 44.3

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 6.7 0.2 7.2 0.9 0.9

Delay (s) 19.9 5.3 4.2 9.9 16.6 52.5 42.8 54.0 45.2 45.2

Level of Service B A A A B D D D D D

Approach Delay (s) 7.3 16.5 47.1 47.2

Approach LOS A B D D


HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B



Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D




6: I-17 NB Ramp/I-17 SB Ramp & Dunlap Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 6

Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR2 SEL SER SER2 NWL NWR NWR2

Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 340 472 410 597 1035 480 344 336 420 870 449 374

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Grade (%) 0% 0%

Total Lost time (s) 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.7 6.4 6.4 11.7 6.4 6.4

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.97

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 6369 2706 3433 5045 1496 3433 2949 1555 3176 2721 1417

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6369 2706 3433 5045 1496 3433 2949 1555 3176 2721 1417



Adj. Flow (vph) 370 513 446 649 1125 522 374 376 470 946 488 407



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 3 3 12 27 8 8 27

Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot custom custom Prot custom custom

Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 7


Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 24.4 24.4 17.7 26.4 26.4 17.9 19.8 19.8 23.3 25.2 25.2

Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 24.4 24.4 17.7 26.4 26.4 17.9 19.8 19.8 23.3 25.2 25.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.20

Clearance Time (s) 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.7 6.4 6.4 11.7 6.4 6.4

Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 431 1243 528 486 1065 315 491 467 246 592 548 285

v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.08 c0.19 c0.22 0.11 c0.30

v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.02 c0.17 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.86 0.41 0.16 1.34 1.06 0.58 0.76 0.83 0.15 1.60 0.84 0.16

Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 44.0 41.8 53.6 49.3 44.3 51.5 51.0 45.4 50.9 47.9 41.2

Progression 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

Incremental Delay, d2 15.0 1.0 0.7 164.5 43.7 7.7 6.2 11.4 0.1 277.0 10.4 0.1

Delay (s) 68.5 45.0 42.5 218.1 93.0 52.0 57.7 62.4 45.5 327.8 58.3 41.2

Level of Service E D D F F D E E D F E D

Approach Delay (s) 50.7 119.1

Approach LOS D F


HCM 2000 Control Delay 115.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service F



Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H




7: 25th Ave & Exit Dr/ Mission Ln 11/1/2017


HDR Page 7


Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 2 0 13 67 0 139 0 190 26 80 539 0

Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians 1 2







Upstream signal (ft) 654

pX, platoon unblocked


vC1, stage 1 conf vol 761 761 221 221

vC2, stage 2 conf vol 360 235 774 761


tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 99 100 97 79 100 81 100 93

cM capacity (veh/h) 308 362 509 340 367 816 987 1333

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 16 224 0 235 87 586

Volume Left 2 73 0 0 87 0

Volume Right 14 151 0 28 0 0

cSH 468 560 1700 1700 1333 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.14 0.07 0.34

Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 48 0 0 5 0

Control Delay (s) 13.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0

Lane LOS B C A

Approach Delay (s) 13.0 15.6 0.0 1.0

Approach LOS B C


Average Delay 3.8




8: 25th Ave & Sheraton Dr/9201Dr 11/1/2017


HDR Page 8


Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 71 1 243 8 1 1 11 304 2 0 381 4


Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians 1 2 1

Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0

Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0

Percent Blockage 0 0 0







vC1, stage 1 conf vol 417 417 355 355

vC2, stage 2 conf vol 357 357 681 419


tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 85 100 58 96 100 100 99 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 511 500 632 233 495 709 1139 1227


Volume Total 342 11 12 333 0 418


Volume Right 264 1 0 2 0 4

cSH 600 265 1139 1700 1700 1700



Control Delay (s) 18.7 19.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lane LOS C C A

Approach Delay (s) 18.7 19.2 0.3 0.0

Approach LOS C C


Average Delay 6.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A



9: 25th Ave & 24th Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 9

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 20 15 328 5 5 353

Sign Control Stop Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 16 360 5 5 388

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage






vC, conflicting volume 761 363 366

vC1, stage 1 conf vol 363

vC2, stage 2 conf vol 399

vCu, unblocked vol 761 363 366

tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 96 98 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 569 682 1193

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2

Volume Total 38 366 5 388

Volume Left 22 0 5 0

Volume Right 16 5 0 0

cSH 612 1700 1193 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.23

Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0

Control Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 8.0 0.0

Lane LOS B A

Approach Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 0.1

Approach LOS B


Average Delay 0.6




13: 25th Ave & Black Canyon CCtr /Driveway 11/1/2017


HDR Page 10


Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 2 0 1 6 0 14 0 359 1 17 354 2


Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians 4

Lane Width (ft) 12.0

Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0

Percent Blockage 0




Upstream signal (ft)



vC1, stage 1 conf vol 427 427 395 395

vC2, stage 2 conf vol 409 395 431 428


tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5

tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 100 98 100 98

cM capacity (veh/h) 474 477 653 489 482 654 1168 1163


Volume Total 3 22 0 395 19 391


Volume Right 1 15 0 1 0 2

cSH 522 594 1700 1700 1163 1700



Control Delay (s) 11.9 11.3 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0

Lane LOS B B A

Approach Delay (s) 11.9 11.3 0.0 0.4

Approach LOS B B


Average Delay 0.5




14: Mountain View Rd/Prvt Driveways & 25th Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 11

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 15 238 25 42 298 31 14 5 125 5 4 3

Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop

Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92


Pedestrians 4 2










vC1, stage 1 conf vol 312 312 438 438

vC2, stage 2 conf vol 425 455 434 326


tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5

tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

p0 queue free % 99 96 97 99 82 99 99 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 1193 1265 498 475 757 383 475 696

Direction, Lane # SE 1 SE 2 NW 1 NW 2 NE 1 SW 1

Volume Total 16 289 46 361 158 13

Volume Left 16 0 46 0 15 5

Volume Right 0 27 0 34 137 3

cSH 1193 1700 1265 1700 707 465



Control Delay (s) 8.1 0.0 8.0 0.0 11.6 13.0

Lane LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.9 11.6 13.0

Approach LOS B B


Average Delay 2.8




15: Cheryl Dr & BlackCanyon SB Frontage Rd 11/1/2017


HDR Page 12

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 142 0 0 133 50

Sign Control Yield Free Free

Grade 0% 0% 0%

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 154 0 0 145 54

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage


Median type None None

Median storage veh)



vC, conflicting volume 145 72 145

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol 145 72 145

tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2

p0 queue free % 100 84 100

cM capacity (veh/h) 833 975 1435

Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3

Volume Total 154 72 72 54

Volume Left 0 0 0 0

Volume Right 154 0 0 54

cSH 975 1700 1700 1700

Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.03

Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 0 0 0

Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lane LOS A

Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0

Approach LOS A


Average Delay 4.1




16: Metro Pkwy & Cheryl Dr 11/1/2017


HDR Page 13


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 27 32 10 10 15 24 12 236 20 86 88 13

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1765 3401 3464 1560 1767 3525 1535 1766 3449

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1371 3401 2962 1560 1265 3525 1535 1095 3449



Adj. Flow (vph) 30 36 11 11 17 27 13 264 22 96 99 15



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 6 6 3 2 2 2 2

Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2

Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA

Protected Phases 1 1 2 2





Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 340 296 156 929 2590 1128 804 2535

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.07 0.03

v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 c0.09

v/c Ratio 0.22 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 24.6 24.5 24.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2



Delay (s) 25.7 24.7 24.7 24.4 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.2

Level of Service C C C C A A A A A

Approach Delay (s) 25.1 24.5 2.3 2.4

Approach LOS C C A A


HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A







18: I-17 SB On Ramp/I-17 SB Off Ramp & Peoria Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 14


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 0 916 546 483 1631 0 0 0 0 330 113 718

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.91

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 6408 1583 1522 4787 1596 2763 1372

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.61 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 6408 1583 0 2916 1596 2763 1372



Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1026 611 541 1826 0 0 0 0 369 127 804



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 4 16

Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm


Permitted Phases 1 7 2 2

Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 34.8 75.2 75.2 33.8 33.8 33.8

Effective Green, g (s) 34.8 34.8 75.2 75.2 33.8 33.8 33.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.47 0.21 0.21 0.21

Clearance Time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.0

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1393 344 715 2249 337 583 289

v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 0.25 c0.41

v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 c0.20 0.12 0.08

v/c Ratio 0.74 1.10 0.54 0.88 0.93 0.57 0.38

Uniform Delay, d1 58.3 62.6 30.1 38.4 62.0 56.6 54.2

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.21 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 76.8 0.1 0.4 31.8 1.4 0.9

Delay (s) 61.8 139.4 6.3 10.1 93.8 57.9 55.0

Level of Service E F A B F E E

Approach Delay (s) 90.8 9.4 0.0 65.7

Approach LOS F A A E


HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D



Intersection Capacity Utilization 123.0% ICU Level of Service H




19: I-17 NB off Ramp/I-17 NB on Ramp & Peoria Ave 11/1/2017


HDR Page 15


Lane Configurations

Volume (vph) 542 732 0 0 1342 378 786 322 312 0 0 0

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8

Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1522 4742 5085 1583 3387 1740 1447

Flt Permitted 0.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 0 2916 5085 1583 3387 1740 1447



Adj. Flow (vph) 607 820 0 0 1502 423 880 360 349 0 0 0



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 10

Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm


Permitted Phases 1 7 8 8

Actuated Green, G (s) 74.8 74.8 35.0 35.0 34.2 34.2 34.2

Effective Green, g (s) 74.8 74.8 35.0 35.0 34.2 34.2 34.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21

Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 711 2216 1112 346 723 371 309

v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.24 c0.30 0.23

v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 c0.26 0.07

v/c Ratio 0.43 0.51 1.35 0.84 1.22 1.06 0.32

Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 29.7 62.5 59.9 62.9 62.9 53.0

Progression Factor 0.13 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.5 163.8 16.8 110.1 63.0 0.6

Delay (s) 4.9 4.8 226.3 76.7 173.0 125.9 53.6

Level of Service A A F E F F D

Approach Delay (s) 4.8 193.4 137.7 0.0

Approach LOS A F F A


HCM 2000 Control Delay 121.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F



Intersection Capacity Utilization 123.0% ICU Level of Service H



HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: 19th Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017

NW Phase 2 LRT Extension 4:30 pm 10/26/2017 No Build 2040 Synchro 8 ReportHDR Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 190 815 100 85 1225 170 210 460 30 135 250 180Future Volume (vph) 190 815 100 85 1225 170 210 460 30 135 250 180Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5072 1357 1770 3525 1461 1770 4965 3433 4573Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5072 1357 1770 3525 1461 1770 4965 3433 4573Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 207 886 109 92 1332 185 228 500 33 147 272 196RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 0 59 0 4 0 0 73 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 207 886 68 92 1332 126 228 529 0 147 395 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 34 66 61 34 36 66 66 36Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 5Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 4 4Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8Permitted Phases 6 2Actuated Green, G (s) 25.6 96.2 96.2 14.1 84.7 84.7 26.9 36.1 12.1 21.3Effective Green, g (s) 25.6 96.2 96.2 14.1 84.7 84.7 26.9 36.1 12.1 21.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.52 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.20 0.07 0.12Clearance Time (s) 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 2637 705 134 1613 668 257 968 224 526v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.17 0.05 c0.38 c0.13 0.11 0.04 c0.09v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.09v/c Ratio 0.85 0.34 0.10 0.69 0.83 0.19 0.89 0.55 0.66 0.75Uniform Delay, d1 77.8 25.8 22.4 83.3 43.7 29.8 77.6 67.1 84.4 79.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 23.0 0.3 0.3 13.6 5.0 0.6 28.5 0.6 6.8 6.0Delay (s) 100.8 26.2 22.7 96.9 48.7 30.4 106.1 67.7 91.2 85.2Level of Service F C C F D C F E F FApproach Delay (s) 38.7 49.3 79.2 86.6Approach LOS D D E F

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 57.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service EHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83Actuated Cycle Length (s) 185.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: C Street & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 20 1060 40 50 1580 25 75 5 80 15 5 15Future Volume (vph) 20 1060 40 50 1580 25 75 5 80 15 5 15Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.97Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.89Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5044 1770 3516 1733 1485 1452 1732 1609Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 140 5044 368 3516 1357 1485 1452 1321 1609Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1152 43 54 1717 27 82 5 87 16 5 16RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 34 37 0 13 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 1192 0 54 1743 0 82 13 8 16 8 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 13 14 14 13Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NAProtected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 82.7 79.1 85.1 80.3 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3Effective Green, g (s) 82.7 79.1 85.1 80.3 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.66 0.71 0.67 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 3324 317 2352 252 275 269 245 299v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.24 c0.01 c0.50 0.01 0.00v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.11 c0.06 0.01 0.01v/c Ratio 0.15 0.36 0.17 0.74 0.33 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 9.1 5.7 13.0 42.3 40.1 40.0 40.3 40.0Progression Factor 0.52 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2Delay (s) 6.4 4.1 5.9 15.2 43.1 40.2 40.1 40.8 40.1Level of Service A A A B D D D D DApproach Delay (s) 4.1 14.9 41.5 40.4Approach LOS A B D D

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 12.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: 23rd Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 45 960 350 95 1550 20 345 95 110 55 90 105Future Volume (vph) 45 960 350 95 1550 20 345 95 110 55 90 105Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4766 1770 3513 1750 1674 1730 1863 1517Flt Permitted 0.06 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 115 4766 229 3513 915 1674 1127 1863 1517Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 49 1043 380 103 1685 22 375 103 120 60 98 114RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 48 0 0 1 0 0 38 0 0 0 102Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 1375 0 103 1706 0 375 185 0 60 98 12Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 28 16 16 28 17 17 17 17Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 8Permitted Phases 2 6 4 8 8Actuated Green, G (s) 70.2 64.9 76.0 67.8 33.4 33.4 12.2 12.2 12.2Effective Green, g (s) 70.2 64.9 76.0 67.8 33.4 33.4 12.2 12.2 12.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.54 0.63 0.56 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.10 0.10Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 2577 250 1984 376 465 114 189 154v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.03 c0.49 c0.15 0.11 0.05v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.23 c0.13 0.05 0.01v/c Ratio 0.35 0.53 0.41 0.86 1.00 0.40 0.53 0.52 0.08Uniform Delay, d1 20.0 17.8 11.1 22.1 41.4 35.1 51.2 51.1 48.8Progression Factor 1.53 0.73 1.80 1.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.8 0.8 3.7 45.4 0.6 4.3 2.4 0.2Delay (s) 32.0 13.7 20.8 37.0 86.8 35.7 55.5 53.5 49.0Level of Service C B C D F D E D DApproach Delay (s) 14.3 36.1 67.7 52.1Approach LOS B D E D

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Private Dr/24th Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 20 1315 15 10 1995 15 10 5 10 5 0 40Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 1315 15 10 1995 15 10 5 10 5 0 40Sign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 1429 16 11 2168 16 11 5 11 5 0 43Pedestrians 6 7Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 1 1Right turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft) 720 587pX, platoon unblocked 0.56 0.91 0.61 0.61 0.91 0.61 0.61 0.56vC, conflicting volume 2184 1445 2636 3687 491 2739 3687 1098vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1481 1481 2198 2198vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1155 2206 541 1489vCu, unblocked vol 1546 1145 1515 3250 98 1685 3250 0tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 91 98 93 92 99 92 100 93cM capacity (veh/h) 239 552 155 64 850 62 80 606

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 22 572 572 302 11 1445 739 27 48Volume Left 22 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 5Volume Right 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 11 43cSH 239 1700 1700 1700 552 1700 1700 166 316Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.18 0.02 0.85 0.43 0.16 0.15Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 13Control Delay (s) 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 30.8 18.4Lane LOS C B D CApproach Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 30.8 18.4Approach LOS D C

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.6Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15



Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 205 1210 40 15 1980 75 60 45 35 170 5 575Future Volume (vph) 205 1210 40 15 1980 75 60 45 35 170 5 575Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.97Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5072 1484 1759 5034 1755 1723 1754 1464 1460Flt Permitted 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 104 5072 1484 365 5034 321 1723 1294 1464 1460Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 223 1315 43 16 2152 82 65 49 38 185 5 625RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 3 0 0 24 0 0 200 200Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 1315 31 16 2231 0 65 63 0 185 118 112Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 12 12 11 13 7 7 13Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA PermProtected Phases 1 6 2 4 8Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 8Actuated Green, G (s) 85.7 85.7 85.7 68.1 68.1 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0Effective Green, g (s) 85.7 85.7 85.7 68.1 68.1 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 3622 1059 207 2856 61 330 248 280 279v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.26 0.44 0.04 0.08v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 0.02 0.04 c0.20 0.14 0.08v/c Ratio 0.83 0.36 0.03 0.08 0.78 1.07 0.19 0.75 0.42 0.40Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 6.6 5.0 11.7 20.2 48.5 40.7 45.7 42.6 42.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 18.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.3 134.6 0.3 11.5 1.0 0.9Delay (s) 54.4 6.9 5.1 12.4 18.5 183.1 41.0 57.3 43.7 43.4Level of Service D A A B B F D E D DApproach Delay (s) 13.6 18.5 101.8 46.6Approach LOS B B F D

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis6: I-17 NB Ramp/I-17 SB Ramp & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR2 SEL SER SER2 NWL NWR NWR2Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 435 600 525 760 1315 610 440 440 550 1105 575 480Future Volume (vph) 435 600 525 760 1315 610 440 440 550 1105 575 480Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Grade (%) 0% 0%Total Lost time (s) 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.7 6.4 6.4 11.7 6.4 6.4Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.96 0.96Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 6369 2699 3433 5045 1482 3433 2936 1551 3176 2698 1405Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6369 2699 3433 5045 1482 3433 2936 1551 3176 2698 1405Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 473 652 571 826 1429 663 478 478 598 1201 625 522RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 471 0 0 294 0 265 250 0 171 194Lane Group Flow (vph) 473 652 100 826 1429 369 478 512 49 1201 689 93Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 4 4 15 33 10 10 33Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Prot Perm PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 7Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 25.4 25.4 22.9 34.4 34.4 20.3 23.6 23.6 33.3 36.6 36.6Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 25.4 25.4 22.9 34.4 34.4 20.3 23.6 23.6 33.3 36.6 36.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.25 0.25Clearance Time (s) 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.7 6.4 6.4 11.7 6.4 6.4Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 1115 472 542 1196 351 480 477 252 729 681 354v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.10 c0.24 c0.28 0.14 c0.38v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.25 0.17 0.03 c0.26 0.07v/c Ratio 1.44 0.58 0.21 1.52 1.19 1.05 1.00 1.07 0.19 1.65 1.01 0.26Uniform Delay, d1 65.5 55.0 51.2 61.0 55.3 55.3 62.3 60.7 52.5 55.9 54.2 43.4Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 213.5 2.2 1.0 245.1 96.1 61.8 39.7 62.0 0.1 297.5 37.4 0.1Delay (s) 279.1 57.2 52.2 306.1 151.4 117.1 102.0 122.7 52.6 353.4 91.6 43.5Level of Service F E D F F F F F D F F DApproach Delay (s) 117.4 187.4Approach LOS F F

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 166.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service FHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.53Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 39.8Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service HAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis7: 25th Ave & Exit Dr/ Mission Ln 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 5 0 20 90 0 180 0 245 35 105 640 0Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 0 20 90 0 180 0 245 35 105 640 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 0 22 98 0 196 0 266 38 114 696 0Pedestrians 2 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft) 654pX, platoon unblocked 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00vC, conflicting volume 1410 1230 698 1231 1211 288 698 304vC1, stage 1 conf vol 926 926 285 285vC2, stage 2 conf vol 484 304 946 926vCu, unblocked vol 1410 1230 698 1231 1211 286 698 302tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 98 100 95 62 100 74 100 91cM capacity (veh/h) 219 293 440 259 299 750 897 1257

Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 5 22 98 196 304 114 696Volume Left 5 0 98 0 0 114 0Volume Right 0 22 0 196 38 0 0cSH 219 440 259 750 1700 1257 1700Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.05 0.38 0.26 0.18 0.09 0.41Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 4 42 26 0 7 0Control Delay (s) 21.8 13.6 27.1 11.5 0.0 8.1 0.0Lane LOS C B D B AApproach Delay (s) 15.1 16.7 0.0 1.1Approach LOS C C

Intersection SummaryAverage Delay 4.4Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis8: 25th Ave & Sheraton Dr/9201Dr 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 95 5 245 15 5 5 15 390 5 5 485 10Future Volume (Veh/h) 95 5 245 15 5 5 15 390 5 5 485 10Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 103 5 266 16 5 5 16 424 5 5 527 11Pedestrians 2 3 2Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft) 855pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1010 1006 538 1267 1008 428 540 429vC1, stage 1 conf vol 544 544 458 458vC2, stage 2 conf vol 466 461 808 550vCu, unblocked vol 1010 1006 538 1267 1008 428 540 429tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 75 99 51 90 99 99 98 100cM capacity (veh/h) 417 423 541 164 417 625 1027 1130

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 374 26 16 429 5 538Volume Left 103 16 16 0 5 0Volume Right 266 5 0 5 0 11cSH 498 221 1027 1700 1130 1700Volume to Capacity 0.75 0.12 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.32Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 10 1 0 0 0Control Delay (s) 30.8 23.4 8.6 0.0 8.2 0.0Lane LOS D C A AApproach Delay (s) 30.8 23.4 0.3 0.1Approach LOS D C


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis9: 25th Ave & 24th Ave 11/15/2017


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 30 20 425 35 5 455Future Volume (Veh/h) 30 20 425 35 5 455Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 22 462 38 5 495PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft) 1065pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 986 481 500vC1, stage 1 conf vol 481vC2, stage 2 conf vol 505vCu, unblocked vol 986 481 500tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 93 96 100cM capacity (veh/h) 487 585 1064

Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 55 500 500Volume Left 33 0 5Volume Right 22 38 0cSH 522 1700 1064Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.29 0.00Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0Control Delay (s) 12.7 0.0 0.1Lane LOS B AApproach Delay (s) 12.7 0.0 0.1Approach LOS B


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis13: 25th Ave & Black Canyon CCtr /Driveway 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 5 5 5 10 5 20 5 465 5 25 455 5Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 5 5 10 5 20 5 465 5 25 455 5Sign Control Stop Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 5 5 11 5 22 5 505 5 27 495 5Pedestrians 5Lane Width (ft) 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0Percent Blockage 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 1091 1072 502 1079 1072 508 500 510vC1, stage 1 conf vol 552 552 518 518vC2, stage 2 conf vol 540 520 562 554vCu, unblocked vol 1091 1072 502 1079 1072 508 500 510tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2p0 queue free % 99 99 99 97 99 96 100 97cM capacity (veh/h) 375 396 567 391 403 565 1064 1055

Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 15 38 5 510 27 500Volume Left 5 11 5 0 27 0Volume Right 5 22 0 5 0 5cSH 432 478 1064 1700 1055 1700Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.29Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 6 0 0 2 0Control Delay (s) 13.6 13.2 8.4 0.0 8.5 0.0Lane LOS B B A AApproach Delay (s) 13.6 13.2 0.1 0.4Approach LOS B B


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis14: Mountain View Rd/Prvt Driveways & 25th Ave 11/15/2017


Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 20 310 35 55 385 40 20 10 160 10 10 5Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 310 35 55 385 40 20 10 160 10 10 5Sign Control Free Free Stop StopGrade 0% 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 337 38 60 418 43 22 11 174 11 11 5Pedestrians 5 3Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 464 380 954 989 361 1123 986 442vC1, stage 1 conf vol 405 405 562 562vC2, stage 2 conf vol 548 584 560 424vCu, unblocked vol 464 380 954 989 361 1123 986 442tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3p0 queue free % 98 95 95 97 74 96 97 99cM capacity (veh/h) 1095 1174 402 397 681 274 397 614

Direction, Lane # SE 1 SE 2 NW 1 NW 2 NE 1 SW 1Volume Total 22 375 60 461 207 27Volume Left 22 0 60 0 22 11Volume Right 0 38 0 43 174 5cSH 1095 1700 1174 1700 612 355Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.22 0.05 0.27 0.34 0.08Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 4 0 37 6Control Delay (s) 8.4 0.0 8.2 0.0 13.9 16.0Lane LOS A A B CApproach Delay (s) 0.5 0.9 13.9 16.0Approach LOS B C


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis15: Cheryl Dr & BlackCanyon SB Frontage Rd 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 185 0 0 170 65Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 185 0 0 170 65Sign Control Yield Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 201 0 0 185 71PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 185 92 185vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 185 92 185tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 100 79 100cM capacity (veh/h) 787 946 1387

Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3Volume Total 201 92 92 71Volume Left 0 0 0 0Volume Right 201 0 0 71cSH 946 1700 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.05 0.05 0.04Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 0 0 0Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Lane LOS AApproach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0Approach LOS A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis16: Metro Pkwy & Cheryl Dr 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 40 45 15 15 20 35 20 310 30 115 120 20Future Volume (vph) 40 45 15 15 20 35 20 310 30 115 120 20Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1762 3391 3457 1558 1766 3525 1533 1765 3441Flt Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1356 3391 2946 1558 1219 3525 1533 1020 3441Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 43 49 16 16 22 38 22 337 33 125 130 22RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 0 33 0 0 10 0 7 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 51 0 0 38 5 22 337 23 125 145 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 9 7 4 3 3 3 3Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NAProtected Phases 1 1 2 2Permitted Phases 1 1 1 2 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 452 392 207 855 2473 1075 715 2414v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.10 0.04v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 c0.12v/c Ratio 0.24 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.06Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 22.9 22.8 22.6 2.7 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.8Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0Delay (s) 24.0 23.0 22.9 22.7 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.6 2.8Level of Service C C C C A A A A AApproach Delay (s) 23.4 22.8 3.0 3.2Approach LOS C C A A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 7.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.18Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.9Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis18: I-17 SB On Ramp/I-17 SB Off Ramp & Peoria Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 0 1200 715 635 2135 0 0 0 0 435 150 940Future Volume (vph) 0 1200 715 635 2135 0 0 0 0 435 150 940Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.0Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.91Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.95Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 6408 1583 1522 4787 1593 2752 1363Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.61 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 6408 1583 0 2916 1593 2752 1363Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1304 777 690 2321 0 0 0 0 473 163 1022RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267 308Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1304 633 490 2521 0 0 0 0 402 478 203Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 4 5 20Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA PermProtected Phases 1 4 7 2Permitted Phases 1 7 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 34.8 74.0 74.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Effective Green, g (s) 34.8 34.8 74.0 74.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.17 0.17 0.17Clearance Time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1486 367 750 2361 265 458 227v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 0.32 c0.53v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 c0.25 0.17 0.15v/c Ratio 0.88 1.73 0.65 1.07 1.52 1.04 0.89Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 57.6 28.4 38.0 62.5 62.5 61.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 337.9 0.2 31.5 251.1 54.1 32.5Delay (s) 63.2 395.5 6.3 44.2 313.6 116.6 93.7Level of Service E F A D F F FApproach Delay (s) 187.3 38.0 0.0 157.3Approach LOS F D A F

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 113.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service FHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.38Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 22.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 155.2% ICU Level of Service HAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis19: I-17 NB off Ramp/I-17 NB on Ramp & Peoria Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 710 960 0 0 1760 495 1030 425 410 0 0 0Future Volume (vph) 710 960 0 0 1760 495 1030 425 410 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1522 4742 5085 1583 3382 1740 1442Flt Permitted 0.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 0 2916 5085 1583 3382 1740 1442Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 772 1043 0 0 1913 538 1120 462 446 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 2 229 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 1429 0 0 1913 460 1120 505 172 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 12Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA PermProtected Phases 6 1 7 8Permitted Phases 1 7 8 8Actuated Green, G (s) 66.0 66.0 34.8 34.8 33.2 33.2 33.2Effective Green, g (s) 66.0 66.0 34.8 34.8 33.2 33.2 33.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 669 2086 1179 367 748 385 319v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.30 c0.38 0.29v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 c0.33 0.12v/c Ratio 0.58 0.69 1.62 1.25 1.50 1.31 0.54Uniform Delay, d1 31.5 33.7 57.6 57.6 58.4 58.4 51.6Progression Factor 0.21 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 284.1 134.2 230.8 157.4 1.8Delay (s) 6.8 7.6 341.7 191.8 289.2 215.8 53.4Level of Service A A F F F F DApproach Delay (s) 7.5 308.8 224.2 0.0Approach LOS A F F A



NW Phase 2 LRT Extension 4:30 pm 10/24/2017 2040 Build Alt2 - 25th Ave SideRunning_CenterSta@25th Ave Synchro 8 ReportHDR Page 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 190 815 100 85 1225 170 210 460 30 135 250 180Future Volume (vph) 190 815 100 85 1225 170 210 460 30 135 250 180Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5072 1363 1770 3525 1464 1770 4966 3433 4577Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5072 1363 1770 3525 1464 1770 4966 3433 4577Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 207 886 109 92 1332 185 228 500 33 147 272 196RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 43 0 0 61 0 4 0 0 75 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 207 886 66 92 1332 124 228 529 0 147 393 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 34 66 61 34 36 66 66 36Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 5Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 4 4Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8Permitted Phases 6 2Actuated Green, G (s) 25.2 92.8 92.8 14.2 81.8 81.8 25.7 34.5 12.0 20.8Effective Green, g (s) 25.2 92.8 92.8 14.2 81.8 81.8 25.7 34.5 12.0 20.8Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.52 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.19 0.07 0.12Clearance Time (s) 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 13.0 13.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 2614 702 139 1601 665 252 951 228 528v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.17 0.05 c0.38 c0.13 0.11 0.04 c0.09v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.08v/c Ratio 0.84 0.34 0.09 0.66 0.83 0.19 0.90 0.56 0.64 0.74Uniform Delay, d1 75.4 25.6 22.2 80.6 43.1 29.3 75.9 65.8 81.9 77.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 21.3 0.4 0.3 11.2 5.2 0.6 32.4 0.7 6.1 5.6Delay (s) 96.7 25.9 22.5 91.8 48.3 29.9 108.4 66.5 88.0 82.7Level of Service F C C F D C F E F FApproach Delay (s) 37.8 48.7 79.1 83.9Approach LOS D D E F

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 56.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service EHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83Actuated Cycle Length (s) 180.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: C Street & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 20 1060 40 50 1580 25 75 5 80 15 5 15Future Volume (vph) 20 1060 40 50 1580 25 75 5 80 15 5 15Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.97Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.89Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5044 1770 3516 1733 1485 1452 1732 1609Flt Permitted 0.06 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 115 5044 351 3516 1357 1485 1452 1321 1609Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1152 43 54 1717 27 82 5 87 16 5 16RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 34 37 0 13 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 1192 0 54 1743 0 82 13 8 16 8 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 13 14 14 13Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type pm+pt NA custom NA Perm NA Perm Perm NAProtected Phases 1 6 5 2 9 4 8Permitted Phases 6 2 4 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 74.8 71.8 76.8 76.8 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4Effective Green, g (s) 74.8 71.8 76.8 76.8 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.60 0.64 0.64 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 113 3017 271 2250 253 277 271 246 300v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.24 c0.01 c0.50 0.01 0.00v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.12 c0.06 0.01 0.01v/c Ratio 0.19 0.40 0.20 0.77 0.32 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 12.7 8.7 15.4 42.2 40.0 39.9 40.2 39.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2Delay (s) 16.4 13.1 9.0 17.2 43.0 40.1 40.0 40.7 40.1Level of Service B B A B D D D D DApproach Delay (s) 13.1 16.9 41.4 40.3Approach LOS B B D D

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 17.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: 23rd Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 45 960 350 95 1550 20 345 95 110 55 90 105Future Volume (vph) 45 960 350 95 1550 20 345 95 110 55 90 105Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4785 1770 3514 3433 1681 1740 1863 1529Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4785 1770 3514 3433 1681 1134 1863 1529Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 49 1043 380 103 1685 22 375 103 120 60 98 114RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 68 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 0 102Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 1355 0 103 1706 0 375 175 0 60 98 12Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 28 16 16 28 17 17 17 17Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 8Permitted Phases 8 8Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 44.1 7.1 47.0 12.3 25.3 9.3 9.3 9.3Effective Green, g (s) 4.2 44.1 7.1 47.0 12.3 25.3 9.3 9.3 9.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.49 0.08 0.52 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.10 0.10Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 2344 139 1835 469 472 117 192 157v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.28 c0.06 c0.49 c0.11 0.10 0.05v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01v/c Ratio 0.60 0.58 0.74 0.93 0.80 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.08Uniform Delay, d1 42.1 16.3 40.6 20.0 37.7 26.0 38.2 38.2 36.5Progression Factor 1.23 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 10.6 1.0 19.0 9.9 9.2 0.5 3.8 2.3 0.2Delay (s) 62.3 25.5 59.5 29.9 46.9 26.5 42.0 40.5 36.7Level of Service E C E C D C D D DApproach Delay (s) 26.7 31.5 39.3 39.2Approach LOS C C D D

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 31.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Private Dr/24th Ave & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 20 1315 15 20 1995 15 20 20 25 20 20 45Future Volume (vph) 20 1315 15 20 1995 15 20 20 25 20 20 45Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.93Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.99Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5074 1770 3534 1649 1452Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.84 0.92Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5074 1770 3534 1410 1347Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1429 16 22 2168 16 22 22 27 22 22 49RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 22 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 1444 0 22 2184 0 0 59 0 0 71 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 7 6 83 83Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8Permitted Phases 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 136.0 12.0 136.0 20.0 20.0Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 136.0 12.0 136.0 20.0 20.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.76 0.07 0.76 0.11 0.11Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 3833 118 2670 156 149v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.28 0.01 c0.62v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05v/c Ratio 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.82 0.38 0.48Uniform Delay, d1 79.4 7.5 79.4 14.1 74.2 75.1Progression Factor 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.3 0.4 1.5 6.8 10.5Delay (s) 76.9 7.8 82.9 15.7 81.0 85.5Level of Service E A F B F FApproach Delay (s) 8.8 16.4 81.0 85.5Approach LOS A B F F

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73Actuated Cycle Length (s) 180.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group



Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 205 1180 40 15 1980 75 60 45 30 170 5 485Future Volume (vph) 205 1180 40 15 1980 75 60 45 30 170 5 485Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5072 1515 1765 5035 1750 1673 1614 1863 1557Flt Permitted 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 160 5072 1515 379 5035 1389 1673 1195 1863 1557Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 223 1283 43 16 2152 82 65 49 33 185 5 527RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 0 15Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 1283 27 16 2230 0 65 57 0 185 5 512Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 7 7 13 11 95 95 11Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ovProtected Phases 1 6 2 4 8 1Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 8Actuated Green, G (s) 55.6 55.6 55.6 42.7 42.7 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 32.0Effective Green, g (s) 55.6 55.6 55.6 42.7 42.7 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 32.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.47 0.47 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.36Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 3133 935 179 2388 356 429 306 478 553v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.25 c0.44 0.03 0.00 c0.09v/s Ratio Perm 0.45 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.24v/c Ratio 0.86 0.41 0.03 0.09 0.93 0.18 0.13 0.60 0.01 0.93Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 8.8 6.7 13.0 22.3 26.1 25.7 29.4 24.9 27.8Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.94 1.14Incremental Delay, d2 24.6 0.4 0.1 0.6 5.2 0.2 0.1 3.2 0.0 20.8Delay (s) 48.6 9.2 6.7 11.6 26.3 26.3 25.9 30.0 23.4 52.6Level of Service D A A B C C C C C DApproach Delay (s) 14.8 26.2 26.1 46.6Approach LOS B C C D

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 25.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.2% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis6: I-17 NB Ramp/I-17 SB Ramp & Dunlap Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR2 WBL WBT WBR2 SEL SER SER2 NWL NWR NWR2Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 435 600 525 775 1355 650 440 440 580 1105 575 480Future Volume (vph) 435 600 525 775 1355 650 440 440 580 1105 575 480Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Grade (%) 0% 0%Total Lost time (s) 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.7 6.4 6.4 11.7 6.4 6.4Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.96 0.96Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 6369 2699 3433 5045 1482 3433 2936 1551 3176 2698 1405Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6369 2699 3433 5045 1482 3433 2936 1551 3176 2698 1405Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 473 652 571 842 1473 707 478 478 630 1201 625 522RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 471 0 0 294 0 265 264 0 171 194Lane Group Flow (vph) 473 652 100 842 1473 413 478 528 51 1201 689 93Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 4 4 15 33 10 10 33Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Perm Prot Perm PermProtected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 7Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 25.4 25.4 22.9 34.4 34.4 20.3 23.6 23.6 33.3 36.6 36.6Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 25.4 25.4 22.9 34.4 34.4 20.3 23.6 23.6 33.3 36.6 36.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.25 0.25Clearance Time (s) 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.7 6.4 6.4 11.7 6.4 6.4Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 1115 472 542 1196 351 480 477 252 729 681 354v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.10 c0.25 c0.29 0.14 c0.38v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.28 0.18 0.03 c0.26 0.07v/c Ratio 1.44 0.58 0.21 1.55 1.23 1.18 1.00 1.11 0.20 1.65 1.01 0.26Uniform Delay, d1 65.5 55.0 51.2 61.0 55.3 55.3 62.3 60.7 52.6 55.9 54.2 43.4Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 213.5 2.2 1.0 258.1 111.7 104.8 39.7 73.3 0.1 297.5 37.4 0.1Delay (s) 279.1 57.2 52.2 319.1 167.0 160.1 102.0 134.0 52.7 353.4 91.6 43.5Level of Service F E D F F F F F D F F DApproach Delay (s) 117.4 207.8Approach LOS F F

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 175.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service FHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.55Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 39.8Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service HAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis7: 25th Ave & Exit Dr/ Mission Ln 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 5 0 20 90 0 180 0 255 35 105 510 0Future Volume (vph) 5 0 20 90 0 180 0 255 35 105 510 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1755 1526 1770 1508 1828 1770 1863Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1755 1526 1770 1508 1828 1770 1863Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 5 0 22 98 0 196 0 277 38 114 554 0RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 19 0 0 174 0 4 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 0 3 98 0 22 0 311 0 114 554 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 2 2Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 6 2 2Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 1 2 1 2Permitted Phases 3 3 3 3Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 48.7 16.0 69.7Effective Green, g (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 48.7 16.0 69.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.54 0.18 0.77Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 200 174 202 172 989 314 1442v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 0.06 c0.30v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.06 0.01v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.49 0.13 0.31 0.36 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 35.3 37.4 35.8 11.4 32.5 3.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.91 1.34Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.5 3.2 0.8Delay (s) 35.4 35.4 39.2 36.2 21.7 32.9 5.1Level of Service D D D D C C AApproach Delay (s) 35.4 37.2 21.7 9.9Approach LOS D D C A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 19.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis8: 25th Ave & Sheraton Dr 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 95 125 15 400 495 10Future Volume (Veh/h) 95 125 15 400 495 10Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 103 136 16 435 538 11Pedestrians 2 3 2Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0Percent Blockage 0 0 0Right turn flare (veh)Median type TWLTL TWLTLMedian storage veh) 2 2Upstream signal (ft) 201 210pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.93 0.93vC, conflicting volume 1014 548 551vC1, stage 1 conf vol 546vC2, stage 2 conf vol 469vCu, unblocked vol 821 475 478tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 79 75 98cM capacity (veh/h) 496 545 1005

Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1Volume Total 239 16 435 549Volume Left 103 16 0 0Volume Right 136 0 0 11cSH 523 1005 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.46 0.02 0.26 0.32Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 1 0 0Control Delay (s) 17.6 8.6 0.0 0.0Lane LOS C AApproach Delay (s) 17.6 0.3 0.0Approach LOS C


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis9: 25th Ave & 24th Ave 11/15/2017


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 30 20 435 35 5 465Future Volume (vph) 30 20 435 35 5 465Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1844 1770 1863Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 1844 1770 1863Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 33 22 473 38 5 505RTOR Reduction (vph) 20 0 3 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 0 508 0 5 505Turn Type Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 3 1 2 1 2Permitted PhasesActuated Green, G (s) 6.4 49.6 19.0 73.6Effective Green, g (s) 6.4 49.6 19.0 73.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.55 0.21 0.82Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 121 1016 373 1523v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.28 0.00 c0.27v/s Ratio Permv/c Ratio 0.29 0.50 0.01 0.33Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 12.5 28.1 2.1Progression Factor 1.00 1.81 1.26 2.39Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.7 0.1 0.6Delay (s) 40.9 24.3 35.3 5.5Level of Service D C D AApproach Delay (s) 40.9 24.3 5.7Approach LOS D C A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis10: 25th Ave & Ped Signal S of Canal 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 435 465 0Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 435 465 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1863Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1863Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 473 505 0RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 473 505 0Turn Type NA NAProtected Phases 1 1Permitted PhasesActuated Green, G (s) 64.0 64.0Effective Green, g (s) 64.0 64.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1324 1324v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.27v/s Ratio Permv/c Ratio 0.36 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 5.2Progression Factor 0.95 0.35Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.8Delay (s) 5.5 2.6Level of Service A AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 5.5 2.6Approach LOS A A A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis11: 25th Ave & Ped Signal N of Canal 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 435 465 0Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 435 465 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1863Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1863Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 473 505 0RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 473 505 0Turn Type NA NAProtected Phases 1 1Permitted PhasesActuated Green, G (s) 64.0 64.0Effective Green, g (s) 64.0 64.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1324 1324v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.27v/s Ratio Permv/c Ratio 0.36 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 5.2Progression Factor 0.18 0.64Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.8Delay (s) 1.6 4.1Level of Service A AApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 4.1Approach LOS A A A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis12: 25th Ave & Ped Signal S.of Station 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 430 5 10 465 10Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 430 5 10 465 10Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1530 1770 1860 1770 1857Flt Permitted 0.88 0.94 0.47 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1559 1452 871 1860 1770 1857Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 22 5 467 5 11 505 11RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 0 0 11 0 5 472 0 11 516 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 39Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 3 3 1 2 1 2Permitted Phases 3 3 1Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 4.4 65.6 65.6 5.0 75.6Effective Green, g (s) 4.4 4.4 65.6 65.6 5.0 75.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.73 0.73 0.06 0.84Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76 70 634 1355 98 1559v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.01 c0.28v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.01 0.01v/c Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.01 0.35 0.11 0.33Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 41.0 3.3 4.4 40.4 1.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.15 1.17 1.60Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.1Delay (s) 41.8 42.1 0.3 1.3 47.6 2.7Level of Service D D A A D AApproach Delay (s) 41.8 42.1 1.3 3.6Approach LOS D D A A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis13: 25th Ave & Black Canyon CCtr / Ped Signal N.of Station 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 30 10 85 5 465 50 75 455 5Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 30 10 85 5 465 50 75 455 5Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1645 1770 1832 1770 1860Flt Permitted 0.91 0.92 0.43 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1548 1538 798 1832 1770 1860Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 33 11 92 5 505 54 82 495 5RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 77 0 0 4 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 11 0 0 59 0 5 555 0 82 500 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 39Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Prot NAProtected Phases 3 3 1 2 1 2Permitted Phases 3 3 1Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 43.0 43.0 17.0 65.0Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 43.0 43.0 17.0 65.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.48 0.48 0.19 0.72Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 256 381 875 334 1343v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.05 c0.27v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.04 0.01v/c Ratio 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.63 0.25 0.37Uniform Delay, d1 31.5 32.5 12.3 17.6 31.0 4.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.65 0.70 0.69Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 2.1 0.1 3.4 1.7 0.8Delay (s) 31.8 34.6 9.6 14.8 23.3 4.0Level of Service C C A B C AApproach Delay (s) 31.8 34.6 14.7 6.7Approach LOS C C B A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis14: 25th Ave & Mountain View Rd 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 30 160 55 460 330 35Future Volume (vph) 30 160 55 460 330 35Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1863 1839Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 1863 1839Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 33 174 60 500 359 38RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 139 0 0 3 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 35 60 500 394 0Turn Type Prot custom Prot NA NAProtected Phases 3 3 4 2 1 2 1Permitted PhasesActuated Green, G (s) 7.6 18.2 10.2 61.8 46.6Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 18.2 10.2 61.8 46.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.20 0.11 0.69 0.52Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 149 320 200 1279 952v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.02 0.03 c0.27 c0.21v/s Ratio Permv/c Ratio 0.22 0.11 0.30 0.39 0.41Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 29.3 36.6 6.0 13.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.76 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.2 1.3Delay (s) 39.2 29.4 50.2 10.8 14.6Level of Service D C D B BApproach Delay (s) 31.0 15.0 14.6Approach LOS C B B


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis15: Cheryl Dr & BlackCanyon SB Frontage Rd 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 215 0 0 180 0Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 215 0 0 180 0Sign Control Yield Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 234 0 0 196 0PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 196 98 196vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 196 98 196tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 100 75 100cM capacity (veh/h) 774 939 1374

Direction, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 SB 2Volume Total 234 98 98Volume Left 0 0 0Volume Right 234 0 0cSH 939 1700 1700Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.06 0.06Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 0 0Control Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 0.0Lane LOS BApproach Delay (s) 10.1 0.0Approach LOS B


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis16: Metro Pkwy & Cheryl Dr 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 50 70 45 5 0 15 50 325 50 125 160 25Future Volume (vph) 50 70 45 5 0 15 50 325 50 125 160 25Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1756 3298 1755 2703 1761 3525 1546 1770 3442Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1756 3298 1847 2703 1159 3525 1546 1770 3442Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 54 76 49 5 0 16 54 353 54 136 174 27RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 44 0 0 0 15 0 0 26 0 7 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 81 0 5 0 1 54 353 28 136 194 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 9 7 4 3 3 3 3Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NAProtected Phases 4 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 3 3 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 10.3 3.9 3.9 51.8 51.8 51.8 13.2 69.9Effective Green, g (s) 10.3 10.3 3.9 3.9 51.8 51.8 51.8 13.2 69.9Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.13 0.71Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 344 73 106 608 1851 812 236 2440v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.10 c0.08 0.06v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 c0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02v/c Ratio 0.30 0.24 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.19 0.03 0.58 0.08Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 40.5 45.6 45.5 11.7 12.3 11.3 40.1 4.4Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.4 0.1Delay (s) 41.7 40.9 46.0 45.5 11.9 12.6 11.4 43.5 4.5Level of Service D D D D B B B D AApproach Delay (s) 41.1 45.6 12.4 20.2Approach LOS D D B C

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.6 Sum of lost time (s) 19.4Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis17: Metro Pkwy & PNR Dr 11/15/2017


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 30 65 370 5 15 240Future Volume (vph) 30 65 370 5 15 240Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.95Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 3533 1770 3539Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 2787 3533 955 3539Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 33 71 402 5 16 261RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 66 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 5 407 0 16 261Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 2 6Permitted Phases 8 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 6.1 75.9 75.9 75.9Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 6.1 75.9 75.9 75.9Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.84 0.84 0.84Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119 188 2979 805 2984v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.07v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.00 0.02v/c Ratio 0.28 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.09Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 39.2 1.2 1.1 1.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1Delay (s) 41.1 39.2 1.3 1.2 1.3Level of Service D D A A AApproach Delay (s) 39.8 1.3 1.2Approach LOS D A A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis18: I-17 SB On Ramp/I-17 SB Off Ramp & Peoria Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 0 1200 730 635 2135 0 0 0 0 465 150 940Future Volume (vph) 0 1200 730 635 2135 0 0 0 0 465 150 940Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.0Lane Util. Factor 0.86 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.91Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.95Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 6408 1583 1522 4787 1593 2761 1363Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.61 0.95 0.99 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 6408 1583 0 2916 1593 2761 1363Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1304 793 690 2321 0 0 0 0 505 163 1022RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 309Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1304 649 490 2521 0 0 0 0 409 529 202Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 4 5 20Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA PermProtected Phases 1 4 7 2Permitted Phases 1 7 2 2Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 34.8 73.0 73.0 26.0 26.0 26.0Effective Green, g (s) 34.8 34.8 73.0 73.0 26.0 26.0 26.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.17 0.17 0.17Clearance Time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1486 367 740 2329 276 478 236v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 0.32 c0.53v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 c0.26 0.19 0.15v/c Ratio 0.88 1.77 0.66 1.08 1.48 1.11 0.86Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 57.6 29.2 38.5 62.0 62.0 60.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.21 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 356.3 0.2 38.0 235.3 73.8 24.8Delay (s) 63.2 413.9 6.5 51.5 297.3 135.8 85.0Level of Service E F A D F F FApproach Delay (s) 195.8 44.2 0.0 159.5Approach LOS F D A F


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis19: I-17 NB off Ramp/I-17 NB on Ramp & Peoria Ave 11/15/2017


Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 710 990 0 0 1760 555 1030 425 410 0 0 0Future Volume (vph) 710 990 0 0 1760 555 1030 425 410 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.95Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1522 4743 5085 1583 3382 1740 1442Flt Permitted 0.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 0 2916 5085 1583 3382 1740 1442Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 772 1076 0 0 1913 603 1120 462 446 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 2 229 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 386 1462 0 0 1913 523 1120 505 172 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 12Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA PermProtected Phases 6 1 7 8Permitted Phases 1 7 8 8Actuated Green, G (s) 67.0 67.0 32.8 32.8 34.2 34.2 34.2Effective Green, g (s) 67.0 67.0 32.8 32.8 34.2 34.2 34.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 679 2118 1111 346 771 396 328v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.31 c0.38 0.29v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 c0.33 0.12v/c Ratio 0.57 0.69 1.72 1.51 1.45 1.27 0.52Uniform Delay, d1 30.8 33.2 58.6 58.6 57.9 57.9 50.8Progression Factor 0.21 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 328.7 245.0 210.9 141.9 1.5Delay (s) 6.7 7.6 387.3 303.6 268.8 199.8 52.3Level of Service A A F F F F DApproach Delay (s) 7.4 367.2 208.7 0.0Approach LOS A F F A


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis73: Cheryl Dr & TransitCenter Bus Only 11/15/2017


Intersection Sign configuration not allowed in HCM analysis.