project purpose and need - oregon document retention/11 … · 16/8/2017 · a summary of area...

ALTERNATIVESMEMO

Date: August 16, 2017

To: Joel McCarroll, PE, and Bob Townsend, ODOT Ryan Oster, PE and Robin Lewis, PE, City of Bend

From: Joe Bessman, PE

Project Reference No.: 1012

Project Name: US 20/Cooley Road Intersection Improvement Review

This memorandum provides a summary of the US 20/Cooley Road intersection improvement project purpose and need, summarizes previous study findings as they relate to the US 20 corridor, provides traffic volume forecasts based on the revised 2040 modeling that includes the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion, and addresses roundabout configuration and phasing options. This memorandum builds on the Bend North Area Final Environmental Impact Study, the Bend North Area Transportation Study, and the City’s Urban Growth Boundary Amendment process.

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Several planning efforts have been undertaken within the northern portion of the City of Bend surrounding the US 20 and US 97 corridors over the past decade to retroactively address area development pressure and capacity constraints on the State Highway system. These efforts have primarily been related to US 97 as the primary transportation route within Central Oregon. With the City’s recent expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary and inclusion of additional developable lands surrounding the US 20 corridor, the City and ODOT seek to develop a plan for the rural to urban transition along the US 20 corridor that will improve safety, accessibility, and operations. This plan is being undertaken to help address development pressure, and is being prepared in part through public-private funding partnerships. These partnerships recognize the magnitude of the overall area transportation needs.

The specific purpose of improvements at the US 20/Cooley Road intersection is to provide travel and access options to the “Golden Triangle” area formed by US 97, US 20, and Cooley Road; to delineate the urban transition; and to remove transportation barriers to support economic growth. Without improvements at US 20/Cooley Road the intersection will continue to experience high delays for the stop-controlled approaches, and safety would be expected to continue to degrade. Improving the intersection is expected to help alleviate pressure on the US 97 corridor by providing additional access options to the urbanizing area from US 20.

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

Several planning efforts have identified key transportation issues in the area related to congestion, continuity of the highway routes, future development plans, and highway improvement and funding needs, largely related to safety and operational issues. These plans have also accounted for efforts to rezone the Juniper Ridge lands (originally designated for industrial development) to mixed-employment zoning and to expand the City’s UGB. A summary of relevant plans is provided below.

US 20/Cooley Road Alternatives Analysis

2

BEND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT

The City of Bend recently received approval for its proposed Urban Growth Boundary expansion that was initially submitted to the DLCD in 2007 but subject to a remand. The revised UGB boundaries were significantly reduced from the original proposal to include 2,380 acres of new land. Within the US 20 corridor area expansion lands included the OB Riley Area and the North Triangle Area, with plans for each area including a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the expansion lands, and Table 1 summarizes the revised zoning designations within these areas.

Table 1. UGB Amendment Zoning Designations

Zoning Designation North Triangle OB Riley Area

Commercial 40 acres 47 acres

Residential 86 acres 28 acres

Industrial 22 acres 41 acres

Mixed-Use 26 acres 21 acres

Figure 2 illustrates the current City of Bend Comprehensive Plan designations for the study area. This shows the additional General Commercial lands along the US 20 and Cooley Road corridors that transition to mixed-use employment and then to residential extending farther from the highway corridor.

Figure 1. UGB Amendment Lands.


3

Figure 2. City of Bend Comprehensive Plan Designations.

Transportation analysis completed as part of the UGB process provided a comparative analysis between various growth scenarios. The primary finding of the transportation analysis was that internal densification provided the lowest overall vehicle miles travelled in comparison to external UGB expansion, and the primary roadway experiencing a difference in travel demands was the US 20 corridor. Detailed


4

operational analysis will be provided to further understand system needs as part of the City’s Transportation System Plan.

A summary of area roadway classifications and characteristics is provided as the July 2016 amendment to the City’s Transportation System Plan. This includes the improvements identified within the FEIS and new roadways to serve the UGB expansion. An illustration of these improvements is shown in Figure 3. This plan identifies Robal Road, Cooley Road, and Hunnell Road as Minor Arterials, and OB Riley Road as a Major Collector. Other than OB Riley Road, no Collector facilities are identified to provide connectivity and access within the Triangle area.

Figure 3. Bend Urban Area Roadway System Plan (July 2016).

BEND NORTH AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

The purpose of the Bend North Area Transportation Study (BNATS) was to verify the land use assumptions within the US 97 Bend North Corridor Project FEIS and explore interim improvements within the study area. This project was completed on October 30, 2015, but was not formally adopted and was only intended to inform transportation strategies and options. This analysis provided a comprehensive review of existing safety and operational conditions throughout the study area at a more detailed level than was provided as part of the US 97 Bend North Corridor Project. The future year 2028 analysis within the BNATS study considered full build-out of the area (inclusive of several currently undeveloped parcels such as the Gumpert property, the WalMart property, Juniper Ridge, and other nearby retail lands). This effort


5

preceded the UGB amendment and reflected aggressive growth assumptions within Juniper Ridge based on the 2028 ODOT Travel Demand Model.

The BNATS study identified that either a traffic signal or a roundabout would be required at the US 20/Cooley Road intersection to serve area demands. This reflected a modification of the adopted FEIS which had only identified a traffic signal due to ODOT policies excluding roundabouts on the highway system that were in place at the time. Further, although the BNATS effort did not specifically include a street connectivity plan within the “Triangle” area, the lack of connectivity on the east side of the triangle was noted as a key deficiency that contributed to highway reliance for local trips. Current City connectivity policies within the City’s Development Code now require development of a grid system through block length and perimeter requirements, so BNATS did not explicitly identify the alignment of future connections on the developing western portion of the Triangle area.

ODOT MOBILITY TARGETS

ODOT performance standards were softened to “mobility targets” in 2011 in recognition of varying highway management and economic goals. These changes included the allowance of higher levels of congestion, particularly within urban areas. ODOT mobility targets for area intersections are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Intersection Performance Standards/Mobility Targets

Intx # Intersection Jurisdiction Current Performance

Standards

1 US 20/ Old Redmond-Bend Hwy

ODOT/ Deschutes County

v/c < 0.951 Level of Service “D”

2 US 20/ Cooley Road

ODOT/ City of Bend

v/c < 0.952

3 US 20/ Robal Road

ODOT/ City of Bend

v/c < 0.85

1Reflects minor-street left-turn (Old Redmond-Bend Highway) v/c ratio; mobility standard for the highway is 0.70 (Rural Lands outside UGB). 2Reflects minor-street left-turn (Cooley Road) v/c ratio; mobility standard for the highway is 0.85 (within an MPO).

3Performance standard only applies if there are more than 100 minor-street vehicles during the peak hour.


6

US 97 BEND NORTH CORRIDOR PROJECT (FEIS)

The US 97 Bend North Corridor Project assessed needs for US 20 and US 97 throughout the “Cooley Triangle” area in response to congestion and safety needs, and accommodations for anticipated development in Juniper Ridge and other contemplated retail uses in the area. The study selected a preferred alternative (East DS2 Modified Alternative, Exhibit 2-3 of the FEIS) that was refined through various project iterations to respond to stakeholder and agency needs. This alternative was vetted through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process that has been formally approved with a Record of Decision.

The adopted Final EIS incorporated several prior efforts:

• Juniper Ridge Traffic Study

• US 97/Cooley Road Intersection Study

• Juniper Ridge Rezone

Related to the US 20/Cooley Road intersection, the FEIS recommended that the intersection be signalized

and that the US 20 mainline include a full five-lane section. The FEIS also provided a recommended cross-

section for US 20 that included a multi-use trail system on the east side of the highway, and sidewalk

connections throughout the intersection. Figure 4 illustrates the conceptual layout of the recommended

traffic signal. This conceptual treatment was not intended to reflect the footprint of a future traffic signal,

but rather the general lane configuration based on the volume projections at the time.

TRIP97

The TRIP97 effort consisted of three efforts: developing a revised set of performance measures for US 97 to better reflect agency management goals; developing funding options to pay for needed improvements; and developing a governance structure to manage the system and prioritize improvements.

To date, the TRIP97 efforts have achieved consensus on the performance measures. These measures include mobility metrics focused on travel time, travel time reliability, and delay for side-street motorists as well as safety, emissions, highway reliance, community connectivity, and multimodal level of service. While the project was not focused on US 20 needs, the alignment of the project outcomes with Oregon Highway Plan goals provides is expected to be relevant to the US 20 system, particularly with the urban growth boundary expansion and associated management goals.

Figure 4. US 20/Cooley Road Recommended Signal Concept.


7

ROADWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

This section describes the existing transportation system characteristics surrounding the US 20/Cooley Road intersection and the US 20 corridor.

ROADWAY FACILITIES

A summary of classified roadways surrounding the US 20/Cooley Road intersection are summarized below in Table 3.

Table 3. Roadway Characteristics

Roadway Functional

Classification Number of Lanes

Posted Speed Sidewalks

Bicycle Lanes

On-Street Parking

US 20 Principal Arterial

4-Lanes 45 to

55 mph No No/Shoulder No

US 97 Principal Arterial

5-Lanes 45 to

65 mph Yes/Partial Yes No

Cooley Road Minor Arterial

2 to 3-Lanes

35 mph Partial Partial No

Robal Road Minor Arterial

3-Lanes 35 mph Partial Yes No

OB Riley Road Major Collector

2-Lanes 45 mph No Yes No

Old Redmond-Bend Hwy

Minor Arterial

2-Lanes 45 mph No Yes No

In addition to these general roadway characteristics, Table 4 provides additional geometric, classification, and roadway flow characteristics specific to US 20.


8

Table 4. US 20 Characteristics

General Information Highway US 20 (McKenzie-Bend Highway) ODOT Highway No. 017 US 20/Cooley Road Intersection: Milepost 17.49

Highway Classification Urban Other Principal Arterial Statewide Highway Expressway: MP 3.1 (OR 126) to 18.1 (Mountain View Mall Entrance) NHS

Roadway Characteristics Lane Width: 12 Feet, Left Shoulder: 6 Foot Asphalt Concrete Right Shoulder: 6-Foot Asphalt Concrete, 2-Foot Gravel Pavement Condition: Poor Posted Speed: 45 miles per hour to Robal Road, 55 miles per hour to the north

Traffic Data Nearest ATR: 09-015, Three Sisters Viewpoint (MP 9.25) AADT: 18,300 Truck AADT: 2,500 Directional Factor: 57 Design Hour Factor (K Factor) 12 Ton Mile Factor: 4.5

Vehicle Classification Data Class 1: Motorcycle: 1.4% Class 2: Car: 65.78% Class 3: Light Truck: 17.52% Class 4: Bus: 1.48% Class 5: Single-Unit Truck, 2 Axles: 8.74% Class 6: Single-Unit Truck, 3 Axles: 0.23% Class 7: Single Unit Truck, 4 Axles: 0.04% Class 8: Single Trailer Truck, 4 or less Axles: 2.79% Class 9: Single Trailer Truck, 5 Axles: 1.24% Class 10: Single Trailer Truck, 6+ Axles: 0.39% Class 11: Multi Trailer Truck, 5 or less Axles: 0.1% Class 12: Multi Trailer Truck, 6 Axles: 0.03% Class 13: Multi Trailer Truck, 7+ Axles: 0.26%

1 Source: ODOT Trans Data Portal, https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/Pages/Data_Portal.aspx.


9

AREA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

The pedestrian and bicycle system is limited within the US 20/Cooley Road intersection area as it is located on the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary within a developing area. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is intermittent, with these facilities available where frontage improvements have been completed. The primary challenge with providing pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity in the area is associated with the highways that bisect the Triangle. The high speeds and volumes along the highways serve as barriers to east-west pedestrian and cyclist connectivity and also provide challenges to comfortable and convenient multimodal travel. Without a developed collector grid system in the north area of Bend, parallel routes are largely not available to serve this role.

There are several planned improvements for pedestrian and cyclist travel identified within the FEIS; including new grade-separated crossings, multi-use pathways that provide additional separation and buffering from motor vehicles, and completion of additional connections to reduce the reliance on the State system. Pedestrian facilities are provided within the retail areas, but these facilities often do not provide connectivity between retail sites. As noted within the BNATS analysis, connectivity between Lowe’s and Home Depot, and between the Target site and retail uses south of Robal Road are limited. The layout of buildings and grade differences further complicates the ability to provide these connections.

AREA TRANSIT FACILITIES

As identified within the BNATS analysis, there is a transit stop located along the JCPenney’s building south of Robal Road. This is the nearest transit stop to the site, though relocation of the transit stop within the mall area was a recommendation of BNATS. Cascades East Transit (CET) is contemplating development of a park-and-ride lot within the mall area to serve local and regional transit, though the specific location has not yet been selected. There have also been discussions of improving the regional transit service from Redmond to provide more direct service to the Triangle area without first stopping at the Hawthorne station. The current service route and schedule are provided in Figure 5.


10

Figure 5. Cascades East Transit Service Map and Schedule. Source: www.cascadeseasttransit.com

TRAFFIC SAFETY

Detailed review of crash records was conducted as part of the BNATS effort. This included review of ODOT SPIS sites, historical crash records, intersection sight distance constraints, All Roads Transportation Safety recommendations, and the analysis of alternatives using Highway Safety Manual (HSM) predictive methods. Accordingly, this analysis relies on these prior efforts within the summaries presented below.

http://www.cascadeseasttransit.com/


11

CRASH REVIEW

A detailed review of historical crashes and corridor safety history was prepared as part of the US 97 Bend North Corridor Project using data spanning from 2004 to 2009. Crash information within the Final EIS was revised to include 2006 through 2011 data, and was again revised within this analysis to reflect year January 2011 through December 2015 conditions. Crashes involving a motor vehicle are required to be reported when they result in $1,500 or more in property damage or any level of personal injury.

Figure 6 illustrates the annual crash frequency at the US 20/Cooley Road intersection. Further screening of the data showed that 5 of the 12 collisions occurred on Friday, and that the higher-severity turning movements and angle collision crash types comprised three-quarters of the reported crashes. Throughout the five-year period there were a total of 38 persons involved in crashes at the intersection; these included one fatality, two persons severely injured (Injury A), 23 persons with some lesser severity of injury, and an additional 12 persons involved in collisions with no injuries.

The reported fatality occurred on July 15, 2015 at 10:00 p.m. under clear but dark conditions. The collision involved three vehicles and resulted in the fatality, two serious injuries (Injury A), and five minor injuries. The collision occurred when an 83-year old driver from Redmond in a Subaru traveling westbound on Cooley Road passed the stop sign and struck a pick-up truck and a Prius traveling on US 20. The crash cause was reported as “disregard of stop sign” but is likely attributable to inattention, unfamiliarity with the roadway, and dark conditions.

In addition to the fatality there were three other crashes reported in dark conditions (33% of the total), reflective of the rural roadway and lack of illumination at the intersection. No other patterns or trends were identified based on review of the historical crash data.

CRASH RATE COMPARISON

ODOT provides statewide average crash rates at a variety of intersection configurations based on number of approaches, traffic control types, and area type (such as rural or urban). The average crash rate represents the approximate number of crashes that are “expected” at a study intersection based on trends throughout the state. Per the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual (APM), intersections are flagged for further review when the crash rate of an intersection is close to or over the Statewide 90th percentile crash rate. This method was used as an initial screening to identify areas for further review. Table 5 summarizes annual volumes, historical crashes, and a comparison to the 90th percentile Statewide crash rates. The table also includes a summary of the fatal and severe injury (Injury “A”) crashes at each intersection as crash severity factors heavily into the ODOT SPIS ranking.

Figure 6. Annual crash frequency at US 20/Cooley Road.


12

As shown within Table 5, none of the study area intersections exceed the 90th percentile crash rate of other similar intersections Statewide.

Table 5. Summary of Historical Intersection Crash Rates

Intersection

Estimated Annual Volume (MEV)1

Total Crashes (2011 to 2015)

Annual Crashes

per Million

Entering Vehicles

90th Percentile Comparison Crash Rate2

Crash Rate vs. Comparison

Rate Total

No. of Fatal & Severe Injuries

US 20/Old Redmond-Bend Hwy 5.9 15 1 0.51 1.08 47%

US 20/Cooley Road 6.0 11 2 0.37 0.86 43%

US 20/Robal Road 7.0 17 0 0.49 0.86 57%

1 Million Entering Vehicles, approximated from October 2014 peak hour traffic counts. 2 Represents 90th percentile rates from Assessment Of Statewide Intersection Safety Performance, FHWA-OR-RD-18, Portland State University and Oregon State University, June 2011, Table 4.1, p. 47. (Cited in ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual, Table 4.1)

SPIS INTERSECTIONS

The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is a method developed by ODOT identifying priority improvement (or analysis) locations on the State highway system based on the available crash history within the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit database. The SPIS score is based on the three preceding years of crash data and considers crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. Those sites with the highest score are prioritized for investigation to identify opportunities for crash reduction. Intersections along the higher-volume US 97 corridor have consistently ranked within the SPIS, but have showed a decline in the ranking over the past five years. The US 20/Robal Road intersection has not been on the SPIS since 2012, and the US 20/Cooley Road intersection is not identified (largely due to the lack of traffic control and low Cooley Road volumes/exposure). Reported crashes within 2015 will not be reflected within the SPIS until the release of the 2016 list. Table 6 summarizes the SPIS rankings for area intersections.


13

Table 6. Area SPIS Locations and SPIS Percentage

Intersection SPIS % 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

US 97/ Cooley Rd

95% - 100% Yes

90% - 94.99%

85% - 89.99% Yes Yes

US 97/ Robal Rd

95% - 100% Yes Yes

90% - 94.99% Yes

85% - 89.99% Yes Yes

US 20/ Robal Road

95% - 100%

90% - 94.99%

85% - 89.99% Yes Yes

ALL ROADS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY (ARTS)

The All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) is being led by ODOT as a data-driven approach to address “hot spot” intersections and systemic crash types on a region-by-region basis regardless of roadway jurisdiction. Within the State of Oregon approximately 50 percent of all Fatal and Serious Injury crashes occur on State facilities, with the remainder on local agency roads. This program is designed to allow ODOT to help support local agencies with analysis and funding. The program was allocated approximately $9 million for improvements to address priority locations and trends through 2021 within Region 4.

The ARTS program provides safety funding for “hotspot” treatments and for systemic issues. The 300% Hotspot list includes the following study area projects:

• Project 14: US 20/Old Redmond-Bend Highway Intersection. Cost: $1,071,000 to install illumination, improve warning signs, actuated beacons, median acceleration lane, and supplemental striping.

Systemic projects within the 150% list include the following:

• Centerline rumble strips along US 20 (specific locations not known), may also consider shoulder

rumble strips depending on funding.

• $215,000 in curve sign improvements along the Old Redmond-Bend Highway between Redmond

and US 20.

• $1.2 million to address roadway departure crashes along US 97 between Bend and Redmond

(specific project(s) to be finalized).

SAFETY REVIEW FINDINGS

Generally, the safety review shows that there are safety needs within the northern area of Bend. While

the priority issues are along the more developed US 97 corridor, safety issues are emerging on US 20 and

with area growth these needs are expected to increase. Safety projects are already planned within the

area to help address systemic and hotspot issues.


14

TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS

This section describes the existing traffic volumes along the US 20 corridor and forecasting methods to estimate horizon year 2040 conditions. The horizon year 2040 was selected as the appropriate design year to provide 20-year design life for the planned US 20/Cooley Road improvements and a consistent horizon year with the current ODOT travel demand model. Figures 7 through 9 illustrate the seasonally adjusted existing and forecast year 2040 design hour traffic volumes; development of these traffic projections are further described within this section.

Figure 7. Existing Design

Hour Traffic Volumes

Figure 8. Year 2030 Design Hour Traffic

Volumes

Figure 9. Year 2040 Design Hour Traffic

Volumes


15

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS

Traffic counts were collected throughout the study area on October 23, 2014 to capture traffic throughout the mall area prior to the start of the holiday shopping season. Manual turning movement counts were seasonally factored to represent 30th highest design hour conditions using the methodology and same Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) locations previously approved for the US 97 Bend North Corridor Project.

The nearest ATR, on US 97 south of Empire Avenue, reflects some of the seasonal traffic characteristics in the Bend North Area. As shown in Figure 10, monthly average weekday volumes can fluctuate 20 to 25 percent over the course of a year, reflecting the seasonal nature of travel to and through the city. Seasonal factoring resulted in a 9 percent increase in volumes to match the peak summer month.

FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Traffic volume forecasts were developed based on modeling data prepared by ODOT’s Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) using the current Redmond-Bend model. This model incorporates the additional lands incorporated through the UGB expansion, and provides development assumptions for lands that were already within the Bend UGB (such as the Gumpert and Walmart properties located along Cooley Road). Use of this travel demand model scenario reflects a reasonable build-out scenario for the overall area, and recognizes the role US 20 and US 97 jointly serve within this area.

Traffic forecasts were developed by calibrating the base year 2010 travel demand model with the year 2014 traffic counts, and by comparing these to the model changes through the year 2040 using the iterative National Cooperative Highway Research Project Report (NCHRP) 255 process. These resultant traffic volumes were manually reviewed and adjusted to account for the following:

• Minor-street left-turns onto US 20 are difficult during the peak hours due to the current side-street stop sign control; the existing traffic counts and resultant model calibration do not appropriately reflect potential intersection capacity improvements at US 20/Cooley Road. Traffic volumes were reassigned from Robal Road to balance the left-turn demands.

• A pending land use application is proposing a new Major Collector roadway between Robal Road and Cooley Road to serve the Gumpert property. This is planned to include right-in, right-out movements at its connection with US 20 enforced with a raised median. Northbound right-turns were reassigned from Cooley Road and Robal Road to reflect this new connection.

• Traffic volumes were rounded to the nearest five vehicles given the relative imprecision of these forecasting tools and balanced along the US 20 corridor where appropriate.

Figure 10. Monthly traffic volume profile on US 97.


16

Traffic volumes at US 20/Cooley Road reflect an annual growth of approximately 2.2%, and a slightly higher annual growth rate of 2.4% at the US 20/Robal Road intersection.

INTERSECTION FORM COMPARISON

A comparison of intersection form was provided within the Gateway North Master Plan summarizing the tradeoffs between a traffic signal and a roundabout. This analysis showed that either intersection improvement could be sized to adequately serve forecast traffic needs. While the signalized option would likely cost less overall, a traffic signal is likely to replicate the same safety issues that are present on the US 97 corridor. In addition, with the rural to urban transition the roundabout form addresses City Comprehensive Plan policies for a gateway treatment and complies with the City’s “Roundabout First” policy.

Comparative review of predicted safety based on the Highway Safety Manual crash prediction models show that installation of a traffic signal at the US 20/Cooley Road intersection would be expected to increase severe crashes (Fatal and Injury “A”) by 54 percent, and overall crashes by 64 percent. The installation of a multi-lane roundabout would reduce severe crashes by 82 percent, and reduce the overall crashes by 44 percent. Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of this analysis.

Table 7. Crash Prediction Results for Converting to a Roundabout

Intersection

Future No-Build Future Roundabout Expected Change in

Crash Frequency

Percent Change in Expected Crash

Frequency

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Annual 1.0 2.8 0.2 1.6 -0.8 -1.2 -82% -44%

5-year Total 5.1 13.9 0.9 7.8 -4.2 -6.1

Note: 5-year crash reduction totals are calculated as the percent reduction applied to no-build expected crash frequency. Table 8. Crash Prediction Results for Converting to a Signal

Intersection

No-Build Signal Expected Change in

Crash Frequency

Percent Change in Expected Crash

Frequency

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Fatal or Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Fatal and Injury

Crashes All

Crashes

Annual 1.0 2.8 1.6 4.5 +0.6 +1.8 +54% +64%

5-year Total 5.1 13.9 7.8 22.6 +2.7 +8.8


17

US 20/COOLEY ROAD INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS

An operational analysis was conducted at the US 20/Cooley Road intersection to determine the appropriate lane configurations to serve current and projected traffic demands, while balancing multimodal and safety considerations. This analysis was conducted both for a signalized intersection and a roundabout to understand the varying sizing needs of each treatment.

ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT

There are several different methodologies and calibration factors for roundabouts. As roundabouts have become increasingly common, drivers are more adept at finding appropriate gaps in traffic, allowing roundabouts to serve increasingly higher volumes of traffic. The ability for a driver to enter the roundabout varies based on the number of approaching and conflicting lanes, and which lane the driver is positioned in. For sizing of the US 20/Cooley Road roundabout both the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 Edition and the more recent critical headway and follow up headway factors within the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition were reviewed.

The ultimate sizing of the roundabout was

based on analysis of the year 2040 design

hour traffic volumes. This analysis shows

that to provide acceptable operations the

roundabout will require dual through lanes

on US 20 in both the eastbound and

westbound directions. The westbound

Cooley Road approach will require a

dedicated left-turn lane to serve the heavy

traffic volumes returning to Bend. With this

configuration (see Figure 11), each of the

approaches operate with low delays except

the westbound Cooley Road approach,

which will operate near its carrying capacity

within the peak hour and above capacity in

the peak fifteen minutes. Similar

operational results and configuration needs

were obtained with both the HCM 2010 and

HCM 6th Edition methodologies as summarized in Table 9.

As requested by the City of Bend, Table 10 was also prepared to show an alternative westbound

configuration with a right-turn bypass lane. This configuration was explored to provide a symmetrical and

smaller roundabout for improved safety, yet allow future expansion to occur more easily on the

roundabout perimeter.

Figure 11. Conceptual roundabout configuration

(layout provided for illustrative purposes only).


18

Table 9. Horizon Year Design Hour Roundabout Conditions

Roundabout Configuration

Year 2040 Horizon Conditions, Design Hour (No PHF)

HCM 2010 Methodology HCM 6th Edition

LOS Del v/c 95% Q (veh) LOS Del v/c

95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound LT US 20 Westbound TR US 20 Eastbound LT US 20 Eastbound TR Cooley Westbound L Cooley Westbound TR Cooley Eastbound LTR

LOS D LOS E LOS C LOS C LOS F LOS E LOS C

26.9 17.0 16.5 18.7 58.7 42.4 16.3

0.86 0.97 0.62 0.69 0.91 0.82 0.42

10.9 16.4 4.4 5.5 9.4 7.5 2.1

LOS B LOS B

LOS B LOS C LOS F LOS E LOS B

12.6 15.8 13.9 13.5 74.9 39.9 15.5

0.67 0.76 0.57 0.59 0.97 0.80 0.41

5.5 7.7 3.7 4.0

10.7 7.2 2.0

Table 10. Horizon Year Design Hour Roundabout Conditions (Westbound Cooley Road Bypass Lane)





95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound LT US 20 Westbound TR US 20 Eastbound LT US 20 Eastbound TR Cooley Westbound LT Cooley Westbound R Cooley Eastbound LTR

LOS D LOS E LOS C LOS D LOS F LOS C LOS C

26.9 43.8 23.3 30.6

147.2 21.4 16.3

0.86 0.97 0.72 0.81 1.21 0.54 0.42

10.9 16.4 6.0 8.2

19.0 3.1 2.1

LOS B LOS C LOS B LOS B LOS F LOS C LOS C

12.6 15.8 12.5 14.5

107.4 18.9 15.5

0.67 0.76 0.54 0.61 1.11 0.50 0.41

5.5 7.7 3.3 4.3

16.2 2.8 2.0

The analysis shown in Table 10A shows that the dedicated westbound left-turn lane at Cooley Road is required to remain below capacity with either analysis model. With Cooley Road configured with a shared westbound left/through lane and a right-turn bypass lane the roundabout is projected to operate over capacity and with 16 to 19 vehicle queues during the peak hour.

ROUNDABOUT PHASING OPTIONS

Roundabout phasing options were reviewed to identify whether a smaller footprint could adequately serve traffic during the near- to middle-term period. Minimizing the overall roundabout size improves safety by reducing confusion, maintaining lower travel speeds, and reducing the internal conflict points. For this analysis both existing and mid-term (year 2030) conditions were reviewed.

Analysis of the roundabout using the existing seasonally adjusted design hour traffic volumes provides the operational results summarized in Table 11.


19

Table 11. Existing Design Hour Conditions with a Single Lane Roundabout


Existing Design Hour Conditions (No PHF)



95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound LTR US 20 Eastbound LTR Cooley Westbound LTR Cooley Eastbound LTR

LOS E LOS B LOS B LOS A

44.7 14.6 13.9 7.2

0.99 0.70 0.30 0.03

18.6 5.9 1.2

0.1

LOS C LOS A LOS B LOS A

17.6 9.5

11.0 6.0

0.81 0.57 0.25 0.03

9.6 3.8 1.0 0.1

Based on the operational results, this shows that during the overall design hour the northbound approach of a single-lane roundabout will operate near or beyond its carrying capacity with the year 2014 design hour traffic volumes. This does not account for planned growth within the area or increased demands with the addition of traffic control.

Review of potential mitigation strategies identified the following:

• The near-capacity conditions on the Westbound US 20 approach cannot be mitigated with auxiliary turn lanes as nearly all the demand is through volume on the highway.

• Increasing eastbound US 20 left-turn traffic or eastbound through volumes on Cooley Road will conflict with the heavy westbound US 20 volume and quickly degrade the roundabout capacity.

In considering a multi-lane roundabout design, the location of the US 20/Cooley Road intersection is within a highway section with high truck volumes and passing lanes, and is located approximately 4,000 feet from the Westbound US 20 merge into a single lane. While this distance provides adequate time for drivers to merge, lane utilization bias may result in worse operations than those reported.

Analysis was also conducted of the overall design hour under year 2030 conditions, taking a direct average of the existing and horizon design year volumes. These traffic forecasts closely approximate projections from the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the Gateway North Master Plan (Gumpert Property) build-out, with similar traffic volumes on the highway and Cooley Road. Operational results are summarized in Table 12, and key findings of this analysis are summarized below:

• Based on increasing traffic volumes on the highway and Cooley Road a single-lane roundabout will be inadequate, with all but the eastbound Cooley Road approach exceeding or at capacity.

• Both analysis models show that dual through lanes will be required on US 20 Westbound, and the HCM 2010 methodology also shows the need for dual US 20 Eastbound through lanes.

• A single westbound Cooley Road approach will be adequate to serve the projected traffic demands in this scenario within the peak hour, but will operate at-capacity during the peak fifteen-minute period.


20

Table 12. Year 2030 Design Hour Conditions with Dual US 20 Westbound Through Lanes


Year 2030 Design Hour Conditions (No PHF)


LOS Del (s) v/c 95% Q (veh) LOS Del (s) v/c

95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound LT US 20 Westbound TR US 20 Eastbound LTR Cooley Westbound LTR Cooley Eastbound LTR

LOS B LOS C LOS F LOS E LOS B

13.6 16.8 65.2 40.5 13.8

0.65 0.73 1.04 0.84 0.26

5.0 6.8

19.5 8.4 1.0

LOS A LOS A LOS D LOS D LOS B

9.7 8.5

25.7 34.4 11.0

0.58 0.51 0.86 0.80 0.22

3.9 3.0

10.9 7.7 0.8

A summary of widening to include dual eastbound and westbound US 20 through lanes is provided in Table 13.

Table 13. Year 2030 Design Hour Conditions with Dual US 20 Eastbound and Westbound Through Lanes


Year 2030 Design Hour Conditions (No PHF)


LOS Del (s) v/c 95% Q (veh) LOS Del (s) v/c

95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound LT US 20 Westbound TR US 20 Eastbound LT US 20 Eastbound TR Cooley Westbound LTR Cooley Eastbound LTR

LOS B LOS C LOS B LOS B LOS E LOS A

13.6 16.8 11.3 12.8 40.5 9.3

0.65 0.73 0.49 0.55 0.84 0.19

5.0 6.8 2.7 3.4 8.4 0.7

LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS D LOS A

9.7 8.5 7.6 8.3

34.4 8.5

0.58 0.51 0.38 0.43 0.80 0.18

3.9 3.0 1.8 2.2 7.5 0.6

The analysis within Tables 12 and 13 shows that a single US 20 Eastbound through lane with a roundabout concept could perform marginally in 2030. The addition of dual eastbound and westbound through lanes along US 20 would provide low overall delays and queuing, and would also accommodate the 2040 horizon demands.

Roundabout Concept Design Vehicle Accommodations

An additional consideration for a signal or roundabout concept is freight accommodation. This includes preparing a design for typical highway trucks and the accommodation of over-dimensional loads, so that the intersection treatment does not serve as a barrier to economic growth opportunities along this designated freight route. The freight accommodations for a multilane roundabout are more complex than those of a single-lane design. Within the multilane design there are various levels of design for typical freight traffic; this varies from trucks that may use both travel lanes, to designing for trucks to remain within their own designated lane. Given the Freight Route classification of US 20, truck volumes, and approach speeds, the initial design of the roundabout pursued the most conservative design that will allow typical interstate trucks (WB-67) to remain within their own lane. This requires wider circulatory lanes, a larger roundabout diameter, and wider median space to accommodate the trailer tracking.

The second freight consideration is over-dimensional loads. With the long-term need for double-lanes northbound and southbound along with additional median area the design was prepared to accommodate


21

a wide range of over-dimensional loads. This accommodation will be further refined within a more detailed design phase and discussions with freight industry representatives, as required by State statute. Development of over-dimensional truck accommodations will follow the selection of an intersection control type and selection of the near- and long-term lane configuration.

SIGNALIZED CONCEPT

A signalized control concept at US 20/Cooley Road was reviewed to understand the lane configuration and storage needs this treatment would provide near- and long-term. The primary benefit of a signalized concept is the ability to coordinate the signal timing with the US 20/Robal Road intersection and the consistent control treatment it would provide along US 20.

Operations analysis for a signalized concept were prepared with similar calibration parameters as the roundabout analysis (national average saturation flow rates1 and overall hour analysis) to provide a consistent comparison to the roundabout concept. This analysis identified the following configuration needs:

• Protected signal phasing on all approaches given the high US 20 speeds and dual Cooley Road westbound left-turn lanes.

• Widening US 20 to a five-lane cross-section to provide adequate through capacity and dual receiving lanes.

• Three-lane eastbound Cooley Road section to provide a dedicated eastbound left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane.

The operational results of the year 2040 operations are summarized in Table 14.

1 Localized ODOT policy is to apply an ideal saturation flow rate of 1,750 passenger cars per hour per lane green. Use of the higher national saturation flow rate will result in better conditions with a traffic signal than have been typically been observed outside of the Portland Metro area.


22

Table 14. Horizon Year Design Hour Signalized Conditions (HCM 2010 Methodology)



LOS Del (s) v/c 95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound L US 20 Westbound Dual T US 20 Westbound R US 20 Eastbound L US 20 Eastbound T, TR Cooley Dual Westbound L Cooley Westbound TR Cooley Eastbound L Cooley Eastbound TR

LOS E LOS C LOS C LOS E LOS C LOS E LOS E LOS E LOS D

62.0 25.1 20.1 66.8 20.8 55.3 65.9 68.5 45.8

0.78

0.72 0.43 0.80 0.49 0.82 0.92 0.77 0.54

4.9 20.5 6.4 5.3

12.3 7.4

13.0 3.7

3.3

Overall Intersection Metrics

LOS C 34.1 0.76 n/a

SIGNALIZED CONCEPT PHASING STRATEGIES

Similar to the roundabout concept, a separate review was conducted using the year 2030 forecast traffic volumes to identify whether a smaller footprint could meet the mid-term operational needs. The forecast year 2030 traffic volumes shown in Figure 8 were assessed with the signalized configuration to identify whether a smaller footprint could be used as a phasing strategy. This analysis identified the following configuration needs:

• A single westbound left-turn lane from Cooley Road would be adequate to serve forecast demands.

• A single US 20 Eastbound lane could provide adequate intersection operations.

The year 2030 configuration of the intersection shows results that are similar to the roundabout analysis; the existing highway cross-section can meet ODOT mobility targets, and a three-lane section along Cooley Road would also be adequate. Extensive queuing in the US 20 Eastbound direction is shown to occur in either concept without providing dual through lanes in both directions. A summary of the intersection operations is provided in Table 15.


23

Table 15. Year 2030 Design Hour Signalized Conditions (HCM 2010 Methodology)



LOS Del (s) v/c 95% Q (veh)

US 20 Westbound L US 20 Westbound T, TR US 20 Eastbound L US 20 Eastbound TR Cooley Westbound L Cooley Westbound TR Cooley Eastbound L Cooley Eastbound TR

LOS E LOS B LOS E LOS B LOS E LOS E LOS E LOS D

68.3 18.2 63.8 19.6 61.4 55.3 74.4 52.9

0.77 0.64 0.79 0.72 0.84 0.87 0.74 0.62

3.8 19.1 4.0

24.6 8.8 6.8 2.1

2.3

Overall Intersection Metrics

LOS C 23.6 0.74 n/a

Signalized Concept Design Vehicle Accommodations

The geometry of the US 20/Cooley Road intersection provides an approximately 20-degree skew angle, which becomes especially problematic for trucks to make a left-turn maneuver from Cooley Road without encroaching on the adjacent travel lanes. While the roundabout approaches would be designed to minimize the speed differentials through the intersection, the signalized concept would need to consider realignment of the approaches closer to perpendicular, or the performance and safety would be worse than the typical values reported herein.

Oversized vehicle design accommodations within a signalized concept could include setback stop bars to accommodate truck tracking, development of channelized islands to better accommodate the right-turns from US 20 (and separate the low-speed maneuver from the through lanes), and even use of wider shoulders to reduce over-tracking into the adjacent lanes. A conceptual layout of these treatments is provided in Figure 12.


24

Figure 12. Interim Year Signalized Intersection Configuration and Treatments.

COST COMPARISON

Finally, intersection costs were also reviewed based on planning level cost estimates. These cost estimates could vary depending on the amount of right-of-way required, the presence of utilities, and the specific approach treatments or realignment selected and the resultant safety or operational benefits provided. Table 16 summarizes planning level costs for an ultimate intersection treatment that could serve the horizon-year demands.


25

Table 16. Planning Level Cost Comparison and Assumptions

Location Project Estimated Cost

US 20/ Cooley Road Intersection

Realignment of Cooley Road and Installation of a Multilane Roundabout

• Use of the median space would limit highway widening

• Higher ROW costs

• Longer Construction Delays

Est. $4,500,000

Realignment of Cooley Road and Installation of a Traffic Signal

• Considerable highway widening for a five-lane section

• Significant US 20 awareness treatments

• Realignment of Cooley Road to improve skew angles

• Reduced Construction Delays

Est. $3,500,000 (costs could be substantially higher depending on

extents of five-lane widening)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the overall review of this location, previous plans and studies, the key tradeoffs between a signalized concept and roundabout concept relate to safety. With the historical safety concerns at the signalized intersections along the US 97 corridor, and with recent fatalities on US 20 within this high-speed environment, reducing fatal and severe injury crashes remains a critical priority. The roundabout concept is expected to provide a significant reduction in higher severity crash types due to the geometry, and while the capital costs of installation are higher it will also provide a long-term gateway treatment to the City. Signalization of the intersection is projected to increase crashes and maintain the same high speeds in the area. Accordingly, a roundabout treatment is recommended.

The configuration of a future roundabout should include dual through lanes on US 20 Eastbound and US 20 Westbound. It is recommended that these be installed with the initial roundabout development given the limited lifespan of a single through lane and costs associated with future widening. The configuration of Cooley Road could allow an interim treatment to improve safety, driver understanding, and multimodal accommodations (particularly with the multi-use pathway along the east side of US 20 as identified within the FEIS).

Please let me know if you have any questions related to the findings of this memorandum at (503) 997-4473.


26

Attachments:

• Traffic Count Worksheets

• Year 2010 Base Model Outputs

• Year 2040 Horizon Model Outputs

• NCHRP 255 Worksheets

• Operational Analysis Worksheets

Type of peak hour being reported: System Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume

Report generated on 11/3/2014 10:19 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

LOCATION: US 20 -- Cooley Rd QC JOB #: 13127101CITY/STATE: Bend, OR DATE: Thu, Oct 23 2014

5-Min CountPeriod

Beginning At

US 20(Northbound)

US 20(Southbound)

Cooley Rd(Eastbound)

Cooley Rd(Westbound)

Total HourlyTotals

Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U4:10 PM 0 58 4 0 4 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 138 16244:15 PM 1 49 2 0 6 44 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 7 0 115 16194:20 PM 1 53 3 0 6 50 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 10 0 128 16334:25 PM 1 74 4 0 3 58 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 151 16384:30 PM 2 65 3 0 2 48 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 8 0 133 16524:35 PM 1 69 4 0 2 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 129 1624

4:40 PM 2 65 2 0 2 52 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 6 0 135 16004:45 PM 1 65 2 0 4 45 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 10 0 130 15974:50 PM 1 63 1 0 5 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 125 15944:55 PM 0 58 2 0 4 52 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 125 15795:00 PM 0 58 4 0 6 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 115 15525:05 PM 0 87 10 0 5 46 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 156 15805:10 PM 2 86 5 0 2 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 149 1591

5:15 PM 3 73 4 0 3 45 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 136 16125:20 PM 1 75 0 0 3 45 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 14 0 141 16255:25 PM 1 69 2 0 3 57 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 0 147 16215:30 PM 1 72 3 0 2 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 123 16115:35 PM 1 58 3 0 5 54 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 6 0 131 16135:40 PM 0 67 1 0 2 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 109 15875:45 PM 2 52 4 0 4 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 115 15725:50 PM 0 49 2 0 2 48 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 111 15585:55 PM 1 54 1 0 3 21 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 86 15196:00 PM 1 48 0 0 4 39 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 96 15006:05 PM 2 49 4 0 4 24 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6 0 95 1439

Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound WestboundTotalFlowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U

All Vehicles 20 868 24 0 36 588 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 12 128 0 1696Heavy Trucks 0 20 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 60Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0

Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Railroad

Stopped Buses

Comments:

Peak-Hour: 4:40 PM -- 5:40 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM

13 829 38

445702

3

3

10 1

10

90

880

616

16

101

922

581

85

25

0.95

0.0 3.0 2.6

9.17.250.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

6.7

3.0

7.5

0.0

5.9

3.4

7.1

5.9

4.0

0

0

0 0

0 0 0

000

0

0

0 0

0

0

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA NA



LOCATION: US 20 -- Robal Rd QC JOB #: 13127102CITY/STATE: Bend, OR DATE: Thu, Oct 23 2014

5-Min CountPeriod

Beginning At

US 20(Northbound)

US 20(Southbound)

Robal Rd(Eastbound)

Robal Rd(Westbound)

Total HourlyTotals

Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U4:10 PM 0 55 26 0 4 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 9 0 163 18854:15 PM 0 45 13 0 11 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 11 0 141 18944:20 PM 0 44 46 0 6 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 0 162 19254:25 PM 0 49 22 0 8 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 17 0 162 19224:30 PM 0 73 24 0 3 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 153 19114:35 PM 0 57 13 0 4 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 19 0 146 1893

4:40 PM 0 55 15 0 9 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 17 0 153 18774:45 PM 0 57 25 0 8 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 12 0 152 18514:50 PM 0 57 20 0 4 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 7 0 136 18284:55 PM 0 57 24 0 4 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 8 0 145 18135:00 PM 0 49 21 0 6 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 141 18105:05 PM 0 84 22 0 3 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 17 0 195 18495:10 PM 0 85 36 0 7 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 6 0 182 1868

5:15 PM 0 54 23 0 7 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 11 0 146 18735:20 PM 0 86 29 0 4 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 6 0 184 18955:25 PM 0 47 15 0 9 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 14 0 153 18865:30 PM 0 72 17 0 7 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 8 0 156 18895:35 PM 0 49 16 0 6 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 12 0 145 18885:40 PM 0 55 20 0 5 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 7 0 131 18665:45 PM 0 63 17 0 3 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 4 0 135 18495:50 PM 0 43 17 0 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 3 0 120 18335:55 PM 0 46 19 0 8 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 108 17966:00 PM 0 41 13 0 8 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 13 0 115 17706:05 PM 0 37 12 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 9 0 93 1668




Stopped Buses

Comments:


0 752 263

745060

0

0

0 169

0

124

1015

580

0

293

876

675

337

0

0.98

0.0 3.7 2.3

1.47.70.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 3.6

0.0

0.0

3.3

6.9

0.0

2.0

3.2

6.7

2.1

0.0

1

0

0 0

0 1 0

000

0

0

0 0

0

1

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA NA



LOCATION: US 20 -- Old Redmond Hwy QC JOB #: 13127112CITY/STATE: Bend, OR DATE: Wed, Oct 29 2014

5-Min CountPeriod

Beginning At

US 20(Northbound)

US 20(Southbound)

Old Redmond Hwy(Eastbound)

Old Redmond Hwy(Westbound)

Total HourlyTotals

Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U4:00 PM 2 49 21 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 1094:05 PM 2 50 19 0 0 44 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 1254:10 PM 3 52 19 0 1 35 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1154:15 PM 1 59 13 0 0 48 0 0 0 4 1 0 11 0 0 0 1374:20 PM 4 51 21 0 1 42 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1264:25 PM 0 39 13 0 1 49 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 1084:30 PM 1 45 21 0 2 55 0 0 1 1 1 0 6 4 0 0 1374:35 PM 1 59 13 0 2 43 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 126

4:40 PM 4 44 22 0 0 44 0 0 1 1 4 0 5 1 1 0 1274:45 PM 3 53 19 0 0 48 0 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 0 0 1344:50 PM 6 49 16 0 0 45 0 0 0 1 2 0 13 2 2 0 1364:55 PM 2 53 16 0 0 38 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 2 0 0 122 15025:00 PM 1 46 19 0 1 50 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 1 1 0 132 15255:05 PM 1 59 27 0 0 52 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 2 0 0 150 15505:10 PM 7 55 20 0 0 33 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 1 1 0 126 1561

5:15 PM 3 61 41 0 0 46 0 0 1 2 2 0 7 4 2 0 169 15935:20 PM 7 55 21 0 1 49 1 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 0 0 147 16145:25 PM 2 54 13 0 0 36 1 0 3 2 0 0 4 3 0 0 118 16245:30 PM 4 41 18 0 1 37 0 0 1 1 4 0 3 4 0 0 114 16015:35 PM 0 54 15 0 0 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 2 0 118 15935:40 PM 2 61 15 0 0 36 2 0 1 1 1 0 5 1 1 0 126 15925:45 PM 1 37 14 0 0 33 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 89 15475:50 PM 4 44 11 0 0 44 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 111 15225:55 PM 2 50 16 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 106 1506




Stopped Buses

Comments:


40 624 247

35125

6

15

21 85

26

9

911

520

42

120

639

618

265

71

0.92

5.0 4.3 0.8

0.05.70.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 3.5

0.0

0.0

3.4

5.6

0.0

2.5

4.2

5.2

0.8

2.8

0

0

0 0

0 0 3

000

0

0

0 0

0

0

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA NA

8

5

212

0

3

0

11

00

369

61

572

68

77

56

120

14

287

175

274

50

210

258

298

129

211

557

345

81

157

158

152

913

166

61

50

75

129

499

349

157

66

349

13

284

131

8

73

204

8

1

0 0

2

0

204

68

213

00

Joe Bessman

Text Box

Year 2010 Link Volume Model Outputs, Weekday PM Peak Hour

8

70

4

717

586

706

867

539

809

10

7

181

17

22

4

395

20

41

602

498

489

208

983

420

3120

391

525

36

411

347

345

390

181

81

2

521

164

262

423

353

110

310

405

242

23

4

444

433

613

687

830

682

220

628

122

166

2

0

161

90

242

386

269

653

914

992

208

122

889

26

53

1

46

369

687

70

5682

6

438

137

158

2085

217

378

695

627

2

121

740

45

9

0

156

1 1

38

8

698

165

95

0

30

40

Joe Bessman

Text Box

Year 2040 Link Volume Model Outputs, Weekday PM Peak Hour

Project #: 1012

Project Name: US 20/Cooley Design

City, State: Bend, Oregon

Scenario: Year 2040 Design Hour Volumes

Date: 5/31/2017

Filename/Path F:\1012CooleyDesign/CooleyDesignVolumes.xlsm

Prepared By: JWB

Existing Count Year: 2014

Base Model Year 2010

Future Model Year 2040

1

Intersection Name Leg Movement Left Thru Right

Existing Link

Volume

Base Model

Link Volume

Future Model

Link volume

Base to

Future Model

Growth Factor

Adjusted Base

Model

Volumes

Base Model:

Existing

Volume

Ratio Method

(Existing *

Future/Base)

Difference

Method (Ex. +

Future - Base)

Average of

Ratio &

Difference

Method

Selected 255

Volume

Growth Factor

(From Ex.

Count Year)

In 46 721 285 1052 749 1118 2% 798 76% 1473 1372 1423 1423 135%

Out 98 592 24 714 638 888 1% 671 94% 944 931 938 938 131%

In 7 17 24 48 45 133 7% 57 118% 113 124 118 118 247%

Out 46 30 6 82 61 201 8% 80 97% 207 203 205 205 250%

In 3 592 6 601 514 751 2% 546 91% 827 806 817 817 136%

Out 7 721 10 738 470 747 2% 507 69% 1087 978 1033 1033 140%

In 98 30 10 138 126 135 0% 127 92% 146 146 146 146 106%

Out 3 17 285 305 265 302 0% 270 89% 341 337 339 339 111%

3678 2868 4275 2% 3056 83% 5146 4897 5022 5022 137%

2


Existing Link

Volume

Base Model

Link Volume

Future Model

Link volume

Base to

Future Model

Growth Factor

Adjusted Base

Model

Volumes

Base Model:

Existing

Volume

Ratio Method

(Existing *

Future/Base)

Difference

Method (Ex. +

Future - Base)

Average of

Ratio &

Difference

Method

Selected 255

Volume

Growth Factor

(From Ex.

Count Year)

In 15 933 44 992 863 1761 3% 983 99% 1778 1770 1774 1774 179%

Out 41 659 12 712 606 1230 3% 689 97% 1271 1253 1262 1262 177%

In 28 3 12 43 7 248 115% 39 91% 273 252 262 262 610%

Out 15 12 2 29 10 409 133% 63 218% 188 375 281 281 970%

In 51 659 2 712 645 937 2% 684 96% 975 965 970 970 136%

Out 28 933 104 1065 761 1217 2% 822 77% 1577 1460 1519 1519 143%

In 41 12 104 157 73 740 30% 162 103% 717 735 726 726 463%

Out 51 3 44 98 211 830 10% 294 300% 277 634 456 456 465%

3808 3176 7372 4% 3735 98% 7515 7445 7480 7480 196%

3


Existing Link

Volume

Base Model

Link Volume

Future Model

Link volume

Base to

Future Model

Growth Factor

Adjusted Base

Model

Volumes

Base Model:

Existing

Volume

Ratio Method

(Existing *

Future/Base)

Difference

Method (Ex. +

Future - Base)

Average of

Ratio &

Difference

Method

Selected 255

Volume

Growth Factor

(From Ex.

Count Year)

In 1 949 204 1154 871 1847 4% 1001 87% 2129 2000 2064 2064 179%

Out 155 586 1 742 634 1401 4% 736 99% 1412 1407 1409 1409 190%

In 1 1 1 3 3 425 469% 59 1976% 22 369 195 195 6504%

Out 1 1 1 3 3 344 379% 48 1616% 21 299 160 160 5330%

In 85 586 1 672 606 1230 3% 689 103% 1199 1213 1206 1206 179%

Out 1 949 143 1093 863 1761 3% 983 90% 1959 1871 1915 1915 175%

In 155 1 143 299 165 458 6% 204 68% 671 553 612 612 205%

Out 85 1 204 290 144 454 7% 185 64% 710 559 635 635 219%

4256 3289 7920 5% 3906 92% 8629 8270 8449 8449 199%

South

West

North

East

US

20/

Old

Redm

ond H

wy

East

US

20/

Coole

y R

d

South

West

North

South

West

North

East

US

20/

Robal R

d

Joe Bessman

Text Box

NCHRP 255 Iterative Methodology. Volume iterations not provided for brevity.

New Link Test

Removed Link

Test

Check

Summary

Volume

Override

Okay Okay Okay 1423

Okay Okay Okay 938 South West North East Total In Future 255 In

Okay Okay Okay 118 South 46 721 285 1052 1423

Okay Okay Okay 205 West 24 7 17 48 118

Okay Okay Okay 817 North 592 6 3 601 817

Okay Okay Okay 1033 East 98 30 10 138 146

Okay Okay Okay 146 Total Out 714 82 738 305

Okay Okay Okay 339 Future 255 Out 938 205 1033 339

Okay Okay Okay 5019

New Link Test

Removed Link

Test

Check

Summary

Volume

Override

Okay Okay Okay 1774








Okay Okay Okay 7110

New Link Test

Removed Link

Test

Check

Summary

Volume

Override

Okay Okay Okay 2064








Okay Okay Okay 8196

Adjusted Link Volumes

IN

OUT


IN

OUT


IN

OUT

1

Int. Name Approach Movement Left Thru Right

Base Model

Link Volume

Future Model

Link Volume

Initial 255

Future

Volume

Adjusted Link

Volume

In 130 1003 298 749 1118 1423 1431 3 592 3 19 796 3 19 796 3 20 780 5

Out 80 796 61 638 888 938 938

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting LLC 0

In 20 37 61 45 133 118 119 7 10 20 9 20 14 20 10

Out 130 57 19 61 201 205 205 17 TEV: 1836 phf 30 37 TEV: 2515 phf 57 37 TEV: 2557 phf 41 35 TEV: 2580 1 0.95 55

In 3 796 19 514 751 817 818 24 yyyy mm dd 98 61 yyyy mm dd 80 61 yyyy mm dd 134 60 2040 7 15 80

Out 20 1003 9 470 747 1033 1033

In 80 57 9 126 135 146 147 13566801 - Tom McCall Rd -- Ochoco Hwy.csv 46 721 285 0 13566801 - Tom McCall Rd -- Ochoco Hwy.csv 130 1003 298 0 13566801 - Tom McCall Rd -- Ochoco Hwy.csv 130 1003 298 0 13566801 - Tom McCall Rd -- Ochoco Hwy.csv 130 1085 300 0

Out 3 37 298 265 302 339 339

2868 4275 5019 5029

2


Base Model

Link Volume

Future Model

Link Volume

Initial 255

Future

Volume

Adjusted Link

Volume

In 91 1242 331 863 1761 1774 1665 51 659 51 3 823 91 3 823 91 5 825 90

Out 346 823 93 606 1230 1262 1262

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting LLC 0

In 55 33 93 7 248 192 181 28 104 55 222 55 222 55 220



Out 55 1242 222 761 1217 1519 1519


Out 91 33 331 211 830 456 456

3176 7372 7110 6895

3


Base Model

Link Volume

Future Model

Link Volume

Initial 255

Future

Volume

Adjusted Link

Volume

In 56 1612 416 871 1847 2064 2084 85 586 85 48 1022 149 48 1022 149 50 1065 150

Out 317 1022 69 634 1401 1409 1409

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting

LLC0

Transight

Consulting LLC 0

In 58 70 69 3 425 195 197 1 143 58 245 58 245 60 245



Out 58 1612 245 863 1761 1915 1915


Out 149 70 416 144 454 635 635

3289 7920 8196 8237

Final Volumes

US

20/

Old

Redm

ond H

wy South

West

North

East

Final Volumes

US

20/

Coole

y R

d

South

West

North

East

Future Adjusted and Balanced

Volumes

US 20/Old Redmond Hwy

PM Design Hour


Volumes

US 20/Cooley Rd

PM Design Hour

Cum. Growth: 186.2% Cum. Growth: 186.2%

Annual Growth: 1.02% Annual Growth: 1.024%


Volumes

US 20/Robal Rd

PM Design Hour

Notes: Left-turn demands will remain high, but will be shared with

Cooley with intersection capacity improvements. Relocated 40

westbound left-turns from the intersection to Cooley from the

existing traffic counts. Also converted 100 right-turns to through

movements to reflect the planned addition of a new Major

Collector between Cooley Road and Robal Road.

Net Change: 1,907 Net Change: 1,907

Notes: Travel patterns reflect the low minor-street left-turn

volumes under stop-control. Demands will be much higher and

will balance with the Robal Road intersection. Relocating 40

westbound left-turns from Robal Road to Cooley Road within the

existing counts better reflects future travel demands. In addition,

25 through trips (from the Empire corridor) were moved to the

eastbound approach.

Net Change: 1,494 Net Change: 1,494



Existing Future Iterative Raw Output

Future Adjusted and Unbalanced

Volumes



Volumes

Notes: Future iterative methodology shows reasonable growth

along US 20 but declining growth along the Old R-B Highway.

Growth on these legs was increased to match overall cumulative

intersection growth (37%).X:00 to X:00 p.m. X:00 to X:00 p.m. X:00 to X:00 p.m.

US 20/Old Redmond Hwy US 20/Old Redmond Hwy US 20/Old Redmond Hwy

US 20/Robal Rd US 20/Robal Rd US 20/Robal Rd

X:00 to X:00 p.m. X:00 to X:00 p.m. X:00 to X:00 p.m.

721



Final Volumes

US

20/

Robal R

d

South

West

North

East

Net Change: 679 Net Change:



Volumes

US 20/Cooley Rd US 20/Cooley Rd US 20/Cooley Rd

X:00 to X:00 p.m. X:00 to X:00 p.m. X:00 to X:00 p.m.

INPUTS

Lane Configuration

Entry Lane(s) Configuration

(Note: This assumes 4 legs.) Case: 1 Case: 1 Case: 1 Case: 1

RT bypass configuration

(Note: This is in addition to the entry lane(s)) Case: 1 Case: 1 Case: 1 Case: 1

Number of conflicting circ lanes 1 1 1 1

Number of conflicting exit lanes for bypass lane (if used)

Vehicular Volumes U (v1U) L (v1) T (v2) R (v3) U (v4U) L (v4) T (v5) R (v6) U (v7U) L (v7) T (v8) R (v9) U (v10U) L (v10) T (v11) R (v12)

Flow (veh/h) 3 3 12 1 12 104 15 958 44 51 659 2

% HV 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 3 9 7 50

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Pedestrian Volumes (crossing leg)

n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants

Time period, T (h) 0.25

PCE for HV 2

Default Values

Lane volume assignment

Case 4: LT, TR (bias to right lane)

% Volume in left lane, right lane 0.47 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.47 0.53

Case 5: L, LTR (bias to left lane)

% volume in left lane, right lane 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.47

Case 6: LTR, R (bias to right lane)


Calibration parameters

A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

SUMMARY

Entry lane volume (veh/h) N/A 18 N/A N/A 124 N/A N/A 1017 N/A N/A 713 N/A

Entry lane capacity (veh/h) N/A 527 N/A N/A 414 N/A N/A 1032 N/A N/A 1026 N/A

x (v/c ratio) N/A 0.03 N/A N/A 0.30 N/A N/A 0.99 N/A N/A 0.70 N/A

Lane control delay (s/veh) N/A 7.2 N/A N/A 13.9 N/A N/A 44.7 N/A N/A 14.6 N/A

Lane LOS N/A A N/A N/A B N/A N/A E N/A N/A B N/A

Approach control delay (s/veh) 7.2 13.9 44.7 14.6

Approach LOS A B E B

Intersection control delay (s/veh) 30.8

Intersection LOS D

95th percentile queue (veh) N/A 0.1 N/A N/A 1.2 N/A N/A 18.6 N/A N/A 5.9 N/A

Parameter

Approach

EB (West Leg): Cooley Rd WB (East Leg): Cooley Rd NB (South Leg): US 20 SB (North Leg): US 20

Joe Bessman

Text Box

Single-Lane Roundabout, Existing Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 2010 Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration





Number of conflicting circ lanes 1 1 1 1



Flow (veh/h) 3 3 12 1 12 104 15 958 44 51 659 2

% HV 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 3 9 7 50

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values









A (intercept) 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84

B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102

SUMMARY

Entry lane volume (veh/h) N/A 18 N/A N/A 124 N/A N/A 1017 N/A N/A 713 N/A

Entry lane capacity (veh/h) N/A 632 N/A N/A 493 N/A N/A 1258 N/A N/A 1252 N/A

x (v/c ratio) N/A 0.03 N/A N/A 0.25 N/A N/A 0.81 N/A N/A 0.57 N/A

Lane control delay (s/veh) N/A 6.0 N/A N/A 11.0 N/A N/A 17.6 N/A N/A 9.5 N/A

Lane LOS N/A A N/A N/A B N/A N/A C N/A N/A A N/A


Approach LOS A B C A


Intersection LOS B

95th percentile queue (veh) N/A 0.1 N/A N/A 1.0 N/A N/A 9.6 N/A N/A 3.8 N/A

Parameter

Approach


Joe Bessman

Text Box

Single-Lane Roundabout, Existing Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 6th Edition Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration





Number of conflicting circ lanes 1 2 1 1 1



Flow (veh/h) 29 19 53 173 63 162 53 1099 187 70 742 4

% HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values









A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Case 2: 2 confl lanes


A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007

RT bypass, 1 confl lane (assumed same as Case 1 above)


A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

RT bypass, 2 confl lanes (assumed right lane, Case 2 above)


A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

SUMMARY

Entry lane volume (veh/h) N/A 101 N/A N/A 397 N/A 630 710 N/A N/A 816 N/A

Entry lane capacity (veh/h) N/A 389 N/A N/A 473 N/A 969 969 N/A N/A 786 N/A

x (v/c ratio) N/A 0.26 N/A N/A 0.84 N/A 0.65 0.73 N/A N/A 1.04 N/A

Lane control delay (s/veh) N/A 13.8 N/A N/A 40.5 N/A 13.6 16.8 N/A N/A 65.2 N/A

Lane LOS N/A B N/A N/A E N/A B C N/A N/A F N/A


Approach LOS B E C F


Intersection LOS D

95th percentile queue (veh) N/A 1.0 N/A N/A 8.4 N/A 5.0 6.8 N/A N/A 19.5 N/A

Parameter

Approach


Joe Bessman

Text Box

Multi-Lane Roundabout, Year 2030 Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 2010 Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration





Number of conflicting circ lanes 1 2 1 1 1



Flow (veh/h) 29 19 53 173 63 162 53 1099 187 70 742 4

% HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values








Capacity models

Case 1: 1 confl lane


A (intercept) 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1379.84 1419.56 1419.56 1379.84 1379.84

B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00091 0.00091 0.00102 0.00102



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1419.56 1419.56 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.00075 0.0007 0.0008478 0.0008478 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

SUMMARY

Entry lane volume (veh/h) N/A 101 N/A N/A 397 N/A 710 630 N/A N/A 816 N/A

Entry lane capacity (veh/h) N/A 464 N/A N/A 496 N/A 1231 1231 N/A N/A 953 N/A

x (v/c ratio) N/A 0.22 N/A N/A 0.80 N/A 0.58 0.51 N/A N/A 0.86 N/A

Lane control delay (s/veh) N/A 11.0 N/A N/A 34.4 N/A 9.7 8.5 N/A N/A 25.7 N/A

Lane LOS N/A B N/A N/A D N/A A A N/A N/A D N/A


Approach LOS B D A D


Intersection LOS C

95th percentile queue (veh) N/A 0.8 N/A N/A 7.5 N/A 3.9 3.0 N/A N/A 10.9 N/A

Parameter

Approach


Joe Bessman

Text Box

Multi-Lane Roundabout, Year 2030 Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 6th Edition Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration





Number of conflicting circ lanes 2 2 2 1 1 2 2



Flow (veh/h) 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5

% HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values








Capacity models



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

SUMMARY

Entry lane volume (veh/h) N/A 185 N/A 345 334 N/A 781 880 N/A 432 488 N/A

Entry lane capacity (veh/h) N/A 436 N/A 380 408 N/A 909 909 N/A 693 712 N/A

x (v/c ratio) N/A 0.42 N/A 0.91 0.82 N/A 0.86 0.97 N/A 0.62 0.69 N/A

Lane control delay (s/veh) N/A 16.3 N/A 58.7 42.4 N/A 26.9 43.8 N/A 16.5 18.7 N/A

Lane LOS N/A C N/A F E N/A D E N/A C C N/A


Approach LOS C F E C


Intersection LOS D

95th percentile queue (veh) N/A 2.1 N/A 9.4 7.5 N/A 10.9 16.4 N/A 4.4 5.5 N/A

Parameter

Approach


Joe Bessman

Text Box

Multi-Lane Roundabout, Year 2040 Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 2010 Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration








Flow (veh/h) 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5

% HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values








Capacity models



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117



A (intercept) 1419.56 1419.56 1349.83 1419.56 1130 1130 1349.83 1419.56

B (coefficient) 0.0008478 0.0008478 0.0009213 0.0008478 0.00075 0.0007 0.0009213 0.0008478



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

SUMMARY





Lane LOS N/A C N/A F E N/A B C N/A B B N/A


Approach LOS C F B B


Intersection LOS C


Parameter

Approach


Joe Bessman

Text Box

Multi-Lane Roundabout, Year 2040 Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 6th Edition Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration








Flow (veh/h) 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5

% HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values








Capacity models



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007 0.00075 0.0007



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

SUMMARY





Lane LOS N/A C N/A F C N/A D E N/A C D N/A


Approach LOS C F E D


Intersection LOS E


Parameter

Approach

EB (West Leg): Cooley Rd WB (East Leg): Cooley Rd NB (South Leg): US 20 Westbound SB (North Leg): US 20 Eastbound

Joe Bessman

Text Box

Multi-Lane Roundabout, Year 2040 Conditions, Westbound Cooley Road Bypass Lane Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 2010 Calibration Factors)

INPUTS

Lane Configuration





Number of conflicting circ lanes 2 2 1 1 1 1

Number of conflicting exit lanes for bypass lane (if used) 2


Flow (veh/h) 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5

% HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7

PHF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


n_p 0 0 0 0

Constants


PCE for HV 2

Default Values








Capacity models



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56 1419.56

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117 0.0009117



A (intercept) 1419.56 1419.56 1349.83 1419.56 1130 1130 1419.56 1419.56

B (coefficient) 0.0008478 0.0008478 0.0009213 0.0008478 0.00075 0.0007 0.0009117 0.0009117



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001



A (intercept) 1130 1130 1130 1130

B (coefficient) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

SUMMARY

Entry lane volume (veh/h) N/A 185 N/A N/A 460 220 781 880 N/A 432 488 N/A

Entry lane capacity (veh/h) N/A 450 N/A N/A 416 435 1161 1161 N/A 794 794 N/A

x (v/c ratio) N/A 0.41 N/A N/A 1.11 0.50 0.67 0.76 N/A 0.54 0.61 N/A

Lane control delay (s/veh) N/A 15.5 N/A N/A 107.4 18.9 12.6 15.8 N/A 12.5 14.5 N/A

Lane LOS N/A C N/A N/A F C B C N/A B B N/A


Approach LOS C F B B


Intersection LOS D

95th percentile queue (veh) N/A 2.0 N/A N/A 16.2 2.8 5.5 7.7 N/A 3.3 4.3 N/A

Parameter

Approach

EB (West Leg): Cooley Rd WB (East Leg): Cooley Rd NB (South Leg): US 20 Westbound SB (North Leg): US 20 Eastbound

Joe Bessman

Text Box

Multi-Lane Roundabout, Year 2040 Conditions, Westbound Cooley Road Bypass Lane Weekday PM Peak Hour (HCM 6th Edition Calibration Factors)

Queues Year 2030 Conditions3: US20 & Cooley Rd Weekday PM Peak Hour

Synchro 9 ReportTransight Consulting, LLC Page 1

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 72 173 225 53 1099 187 70 746v/c Ratio 0.28 0.35 0.51 0.68 0.40 0.54 0.19 0.47 0.37Control Delay 59.7 23.6 53.1 35.9 59.4 17.9 4.4 59.7 14.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 59.7 23.6 53.1 35.9 59.4 17.9 4.4 59.7 14.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 13 60 89 36 261 10 48 151Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 57 103 173 82 397 52 100 233Internal Link Dist (ft) 1607 303 2087 2910Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 100 150 50 200Base Capacity (vph) 105 339 408 450 158 2034 975 193 2000Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.21 0.42 0.50 0.34 0.54 0.19 0.36 0.37

Intersection Summary

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2030 Conditions3: US20 & Cooley Rd Weekday PM Peak Hour


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

Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 29 19 53 173 63 162 53 1099 187 70 742 4Future Volume (veh/h) 29 19 53 173 63 162 53 1099 187 70 742 4Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1809 1900 1900 1845 1845 1743 1772 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 19 53 173 63 162 53 1099 187 70 742 4Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 7 7Cap, veh/h 39 50 140 244 72 186 69 2003 896 89 2014 11Arrive On Green 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.59 0.59Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 444 1238 3510 449 1156 1810 3505 1568 1660 3433 19

Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 0 72 173 0 225 53 1099 187 70 364 382Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1682 1755 0 1605 1810 1752 1568 1660 1683 1769Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 4.1 5.0 0.0 14.2 3.0 20.4 6.0 4.3 11.8 11.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 4.1 5.0 0.0 14.2 3.0 20.4 6.0 4.3 11.8 11.8Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 39 0 190 244 0 258 69 2003 896 89 988 1038V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.38 0.71 0.00 0.87 0.77 0.55 0.21 0.79 0.37 0.37Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 104 0 291 405 0 370 157 2003 896 192 988 1038HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.5 0.0 42.7 47.3 0.0 42.6 49.6 13.9 10.8 48.6 11.3 11.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.9 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 14.4 16.3 1.1 0.5 14.3 1.1 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 2.0 2.6 0.0 7.3 1.8 10.1 2.7 2.3 5.7 6.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.4 0.0 43.9 51.1 0.0 57.0 65.9 15.0 11.4 63.0 12.4 12.3LnGrp LOS E D D E E B B E B B

Approach Vol, veh/h 101 398 1339 816Approach Delay, s/veh 52.4 54.4 16.5 16.7Approach LOS D D B B

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 66.0 7.3 21.7 10.5 64.4 12.2 16.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 61.0 6.0 24.0 12.0 58.0 12.0 18.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 13.8 3.7 16.2 6.3 22.4 7.0 6.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.5 0.1 6.7 0.3 0.1


HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.6HCM 2010 LOS C

Queues Horizon Year Conditions3: US20 & Cooley Rd Weekday PM Peak Hour


Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 130 345 335 90 1240 330 90 830v/c Ratio 0.50 0.45 0.72 0.79 0.55 0.71 0.39 0.61 0.50Control Delay 70.2 20.8 56.2 47.3 63.7 27.1 12.0 69.7 22.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 70.2 20.8 56.2 47.3 63.7 27.1 12.0 69.7 22.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 24 129 191 66 398 79 66 229Queue Length 95th (ft) #92 83 184 #324 123 512 160 #132 308Internal Link Dist (ft) 1607 303 2087 2910Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 50 200Base Capacity (vph) 116 358 546 476 198 1737 855 167 1657Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.36 0.63 0.70 0.45 0.71 0.39 0.54 0.50


# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Horizon Year Conditions3: US20 & Cooley Rd Weekday PM Peak Hour


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

Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5Future Volume (veh/h) 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1816 1900 1900 1845 1845 1743 1771 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 35 95 345 115 220 90 1240 330 90 825 5Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 7 7Cap, veh/h 71 65 177 420 125 239 115 1712 766 112 1689 10Arrive On Green 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.49 0.49Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 453 1230 3510 559 1069 1810 3505 1568 1660 3430 21

Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 0 130 345 0 335 90 1240 330 90 405 425Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1683 1755 0 1628 1810 1752 1568 1660 1683 1768Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 7.9 10.6 0.0 22.2 5.4 31.0 15.1 5.9 17.8 17.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 7.9 10.6 0.0 22.2 5.4 31.0 15.1 5.9 17.8 17.8Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 71 0 242 420 0 364 115 1712 766 112 829 870V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.54 0.82 0.00 0.92 0.78 0.72 0.43 0.80 0.49 0.49Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 115 0 274 540 0 412 196 1712 766 165 829 870HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.6 0.0 43.9 47.5 0.0 41.9 51.0 22.4 18.3 50.8 18.8 18.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.9 0.0 1.9 7.8 0.0 24.0 11.0 2.7 1.8 15.9 2.1 2.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 3.8 5.6 0.0 12.4 3.1 15.6 6.8 3.2 8.7 9.1LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.5 0.0 45.8 55.3 0.0 65.9 62.0 25.1 20.1 66.8 20.8 20.7LnGrp LOS E D E E E C C E C C

Approach Vol, veh/h 185 680 1660 920Approach Delay, s/veh 52.6 60.5 26.1 25.3Approach LOS D E C C

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 59.4 9.4 29.8 12.5 59.0 18.2 20.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 53.0 7.0 28.0 11.0 54.0 17.0 18.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 19.8 5.3 24.2 7.9 33.0 12.6 9.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 7.7 0.6 0.2


HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.1HCM 2010 LOS C

project purpose and need - oregon document retention/11 … · 16/8/2017 · a summary of area...

Documents