ATTACHMENT B: SYNCHRO HCM CAPACITY ANALYSIS OUTPUT

Similar documents
James M. Moore, Director of Planning & Building Services, Town of Fairfax. Victory Village Senior Housing Development Traffic Study

February 13, Mr. Chuck Marshall Stewart's Shops Corp. PO Box 435 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

Technical Memo. Steve Gramm, SDDOT. RE: Phase 1, Task 100: Baseline Analysis. To: From: Steve Hoff, HDR Engineering, Inc.

REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

HUMC/Mountainside Hospital Redevelopment Plan

George Street Transportation Impact Study. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited

Syracuse University University Place Road Closure

MEMO DRAFT VIA . Mr. Terry Bailey Foremost Development Company. To: Michael J. Labadie, PE Steven J. Russo, E.I.T. Fleis & VandenBrink.

Michigan Avenue Traffic Study

Travel Demand Management Plan

Traffic Impact Study. Crestline Piggly Wiggly Mountain Brook, Alabama. Goodwyn, Mills and Cawood, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama.

STRATEGY 4 INC Mainway, City of Burlington. [ Month Year ] Project No.: TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING STUDY APRIL 2018

ENKA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL

DRAFT Step 3 Roundabout Evaluation

Synchro Studio 8. Overview. By Ioannis Psarros

Alfred Street Baptist Church (301 Alfred Street) Supplemental Traffic Analysis Based on Comments Received at Meeting on November 16, 2016

Analysis of Signalized Intersections

TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT CASTLE PINES APARTMENTS CASTLE PINES, COLORADO

Signalized Intersections

6. signalized Intersections

4. Include the associated years anticipated for the short term and long term analysis in the

Intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Maple Street in Lexington Signalized Intersection and Roundabout Comparison

Prepared for Lutheran Services Carolinas. Project Number: /07/2017. Trinity Landing. New Hanover County, NC

S. Johnston (IBI Group)

HCM 2010: ROUNDABOUTS. PRAVEEN EDARA, PH.D., P.E., PTOE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - COLUMBIA

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 3009 HAWTHORNE ROAD CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW REVISED. Prepared for: Canada Inc.

Chapter Capacity and LOS Analysis of a Signalized I/S Overview Methodology Scope Limitation

Oregon Country Fair Events

CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF MEMORANDUM

February 24, 2017 Project #: 20076

OFFICE/RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 1625 BANK STREET OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for: Canada Inc.

BLOSSOM AT PICKENS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Updated Roundabout Analysis Methodology

192 & 196 Bronson Avenue / 31 Cambridge Street

Basic Freeways and Multilane Highways (LOS) CIVL 4162/6162

February 8, Ms. Jamie Jun, Esq. Fromhold Jaffe & Adams 789 East Lancaster Avenue, Suite 220 Villanova, PA 19085

Kanata North Catholic Elementary School

Methodology for analysing capacity and level of service for signalized intersections (HCM 2000)

Place Vanier 250 Montreal Road Transportation Impact Study Addendum. Prepared for Broccolini Construction September 20 th, 2012

EAST AND SOUTH STREET CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA

Bank Street Retail/Hotel Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Page 1 of 6

Traffic Impact Analysis Chatham County Grocery Chatham County, NC

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES HOTEL 135 THAD JOHNSON PRIVATE OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:

Re: Tanger Retail Outlets - Phase 2 Addendum #1 to Phase 1 CTS/TIS

December TRANSPORTATION BRIEF 1-19 Beechwood Avenue, Ottawa, ON TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION TE WATER

9 Leeming Drive Redevelopment Ottawa, ON Transportation Brief. Prepared By: Stantec Consulting Ltd.

joint access drive. will be

Intersection LOS Intersection level of service (LOS) is defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) by the following criteria:

Student Housing Development

Bistro 6. City of Barrie. Traffic Impact Study for Pratt Hansen Group Inc. Type of Document: Final Report. Project Number: JDE 1748

Traffic Academy: IJS & IMS FAQ/RULES OF THUMB

Road Conversion Study Plumas Street

Signal Timing Design CIVL 4162/6162

Traffic Impact Study, Premier Gold Mines Limited, Hardrock Property

HILTON GARDEN INN HOTEL HOTEL EXPANSION 2400 ALERT ROAD, OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:

The proposed development is located within 800m of an existing Transit Station where infill developments and intensification are encouraged.

APARTMENT BUILDING DEVELOPMENT 1161 HERON ROAD OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY. Prepared for:

HOLIDAY INN HOTEL 235 KING EDWARD AVENUE CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:

SUNY Uptown Campus and Harriman State Office Campus Traffic Impact Study for the Emerging Technology and Entrepreneurship Complex (ETEC) Building

BASIC FREEWAY CAPACITY STUDIES Definitions

LANE USE FACTOR ESTIMATION FOR INTERSECTIONS WITH LANE DROP. Park & Kevin

25 May 2018 OUR REF:

Existing Conditions. Date: April 16 th, Dan Holderness; Coralville City Engineer Scott Larson; Coralville Assistant City Engineer

Actuated Signal Timing Design CIVL 4162/6162

Working White Paper on the Implementation of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual within Synchro Version 9

ATTACHMENT A EXISTING TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENT

ANALYSIS OF SIGNALISED INTERSECTIONS ACCORDING TO THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PROCESSES APPLIED IN HUNGARY

HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

ALLEY 24 TRAFFIC STUDY

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 UPDATE HISTORY

Arterial Traffic Analysis Actuated Signal Control

1223 Michael Street, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario, K1J 7T2 P: l F: l

An Analysis of Reducing Pedestrian-Walking-Speed Impacts on Intersection Traffic MOEs

Shawn Leight, P.E., PTOE, PTP CBB Transportation Engineers + Planners ITE International President Washington University

DUNBOW ROAD FUNCTIONAL PLANNING

LIBERTY TREE ACADEMY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

Highway Capacity. 1. A traffic stream is carrying 4500 veh/hr in three lanes in one direction. What is the average headway per lane?

Conversation of at Grade Signalized Intersection in to Grade Separated Intersection

6060 North Central Expressway Mixed-Use Site Dallas, Texas

Highway Capacity and LOS. Reading Assignment: pgs

133 rd Street and 132 nd /Hemlock Street 132 nd Street and Foster Street MINI ROUNDABOUTS. Overland Park, Kansas

Traffic Impact Study WestBranch Residential Development Davidson, NC March 2016

Signal Warrant Studies

Date: 09/22/2016 Subject: To: From: PennDOT Engineering District 5-0. Dear Applicant,

Traffic Impact Study. Roderick Place Columbia Pike Thompson s Station, TN. Transportation Group, LLC Traffic Engineering and Planning

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 1660 COMSTOCK ROAD CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW. Prepared for:

Right-Turn Traffic Volume Adjustments in Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

Multilane Highways 54

CITY OF OAKLAND. 27th Street Bikeway Feasibility and Design. Final Report (v3) March 23, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Analysis of Weaving, Merging, and Diverging Movements CIVL 4162/6162

Capacity and Performance Analysis of Roundabout Metering Signals

Design Traffic Technical Memorandum

Appendix B. Environmental Resource Technical Memorandum. Assessment on Travel Pattern and Access Impacts

ORLEANS GARDENS SHOPPING CENTRE 1615 ORLEANS BOULEVARD CITY OF OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY. Prepared for:

PRELIMINARY DRAFT WADDLE ROAD / I-99 INTERCHANGE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FINAL TRAFFIC SUMMARY REPORT

OTTAWA TRAIN YARDS PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY. Prepared for:

Chapter 5 5. INTERSECTIONS 5.1. INTRODUCTION

I-95 Northbound at US 1 (Exit 126) Design and Study Final Report

Transcription:

ATTACHMENT B: SYNCHRO HCM CAPACITY ANALYSIS OUTPUT

1: T:ine Boulevard &Grann:i White Pike AM Existing Conditions.,J- +- -+ t of '- ~ t ~ \.!,.I Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) 58 43 87 121 12 37 27 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.60 0.54 0.61 0.58 Hourly flow rate (vph) 79 64 116 151 20 69 44 24 Volume Total (vph) 412 463 539 417 Volume Left (vph) 79 116 20 44 Volume Right (vph) 64 151 69 24 Hadj (s) -0.02-0.11-0.03 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.6 Degree Utilization, x 1.09 1.22 1.43 1.11 Capacity (veh/h) 386 386 388 386 Control Delay (s) 104.8 148.1 232.5 111.0 Approach Delay (s) 104.8 148.1 232.5 111.0 Approach LOS F F F F on summary n Delay 154.8 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 11/17/2009 Synchro 6 Report

1: Tyne Boulevard &Granny White Pike MD Existing Conditions t ~ ~ SIR S Lane Configurations tt. tot..;. Si n Control Stop StoR StoR Stop Volume (vph) 14 43 31 40 48 19 15 225 34 25 207 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.77 0.65 0.83 0.67 0.53 0.54 0.87 0.77 0.52 0.89 0.71 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 56 48 48 72 36 28 259 44 48 233 24 Volume Total (vph) 124 156 331 305 Volume Left (vph) 20 48 28 48 Volume Right (vph) 48 36 44 24 Had' (s) -0.17-0.04-0.03 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 5.7 5.8 5.2 5.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.20 0.25 0.47 0.44 Capacity (veh/h) 548 552 653 647 Control Delay (s) 10.1 10.7 12.7 12.4 Approach Delay (s) 10.1 10.7 12.7 12.4 Ap'proach LOS B B B B In n Summa Delay 11.9 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 11/17/2009 Synchro 6 Report Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. Page 1

1 : T~ne Boulevard & Grann~ White Pike PM Existing Conditions ~ -.. ~.f..- '- t ~ \.. ~./ "" Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) 22 42 87 41 35 43 87 26 eak Hour Factor 0.55 0.70 0.66 0.60 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 40 60 132 68 52 64 132 32 Volume Total (vph) 300 449 498 553 Volume Left (vph) 40 132 52 132 Volume Right (vph) 60 68 64 32 Hadj (5) -0.06 0.00-0.02 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 9.5 9.0 9.0 9.1 Degree Utilization x 0.79 1.13 1.25 1.40 Capacity (veh/h) 374 396 406 406 Control Delay (5) 40.4 114.2 157.4 217.7 Approach Delay (s) 40.4 114.2 157.4 217.7 Approach LOS E F F F Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 145.7 F 81.3% 15 ICU Level of Service D 11/17/2009 Synchro 6 Report

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Tyne Boulevard & Granny White Pike AM Proposed Conditions-Left-turn.,.,.. Lane Configurations 'i t. t. 'i t. Ideal Flow (v h I) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1809 1770 1741 1770 1826 1770 1845 Fit Permitted 0.48 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.39 1.00 Satd. Flow ~~erm~ 887 1809 900 1741 986 1826 720 1845 Volume (vph) 58 220 43 87 151 121 12 383 37 27 279 14 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.73 0.82 0.67 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.60 0.85 0.54 0.61 0.80 0.58 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 268 64 116 196 151 20 451 69 44 349 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 85 0 0 12 0 0 5 0 Lane Grou~ Flow ~v~h~ 79 306 0 116 262 0 20 508 0 44 368 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Actuated glc Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension ~sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 487 242 469 468 866 342 875 vis Ratio Prot co.17 0.15 co.28 0.20 vis Ratio Perm 0.09 0.13 0.02 0.06 vic Ratio 0.33 0.63 0.48 0.56 0.04 0.59 0.13 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 9.1 10.0 9.6 9.8 4.4 6.0 4.6 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 2.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 10.0 12.6 11.1 11.3 4.4 7.0 4.8 5.7 Level of Service A B B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 12.1 11.2 6.9 5.6 Approach LOS B B A A ntersection Summa!i: HCM Average Control Delay 8.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 31.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Tyne Boulevard &Granny White Pike MD Proposed Conditions-Left-turn Lane Configurations 'i t. " ft. " Intersection Summ!!i: HCM Average Control Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 42.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group t ft 'i ft. Ideal Flow (yp-hri 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1734 1770 1770 1770 1822 1770 1837 Fit Pennitted 0.69 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.58 1.00 Satd. Flow ~~enn~ 1280 1734 1285 1770 1118 1822 1072 1837 Volume (vph) 14 43 31 40 48 19 15 225 34 25 207 17 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.77 0.65 0.83 0.67 0.53 0.54 0.87 0.77 0.52 0.89 0.71 Adj. Flow vph) 20 56 48 48 72 36 28 259 44 48 233 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 30 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 Lane Grou~ Flow ~v~h~ 20 64 0 48 78 0 28 294 0 48 252 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 Actuated glc Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension ~s~ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 225 305 226 312 711 1159 682 1169 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 co.04 co.16 0.14 vis Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 vic Ratio 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.04 0.25 0.07 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 15.0 15.0 15.1 2.9 3.4 3.0 3.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 14.9 15.4 15.5 15.6 2.9 3.5 3.0 3.4 Level of Service B B B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 15.3 15.5 3.4 3.3 Approach LOS B B A A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Tyne Boulevard & Granny White Pike PM Proposed Conditions-Left-turn t Lane Configurations 'i ft " 'ft. " ) 'ft. Ideal Flow 'mhpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 -- 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1798 1770 1803 1770 1823 1770 1842 Fit Permitted 0.51 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.46 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 952 1798 1115 1803 896 1823 852 1842 Volume (vph) 22 144 42 87 162 41 35 351 43 87 335 26 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.55 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.60 0.67 0.92 0.67 0.66 0.86 0.81 Adj. Row (vph) 40 200 60 132 249 68 52 382 64 132 390 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 30 0 0 13 o 6 o Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 227 0 132 287 0 52 433 o 132 416 o Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 Actuated glc Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 483 299 484 423 861 403 870 vis Ratio Prot 0.13 co.16 co.24 0.23 vis Ratio Perm 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.15 vic Ratio 0.16 0.47 0.44 0.59 0.12 0.50 0.33 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 9.5 9.4 9.8 4.6 5.6 5.1 5.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 Delay (s) 8.9 10.2 10.4 11.8 4.7 6.1 5.6 6.0 Level of Service A B B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 10.0 11.4 6.0 5.9 Approach LOS B B A A )ntersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 30.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 8.0 A

1: Tyne Boulevard & Granny White Pike AM Proposed Conditions - Roundabout Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 58 220 43 87 151 121 12 383 37 27 279 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.82 0.67 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.60 0.85 0.54 0.61 0.80 0.58 Hourl~ flow rate (vph) 79 268 64 116 196 151 20 451 69 44 349 24 Approach Volume veh/h) 412 463 539 417 Crossing Volume velilh) 509 550 392 332 High Capacity (veh/h) 927 897 1017 1067 High vic (veh/h) 0.44 0.52 0.53 0.39 Low Capacity (veh/h) 748 722 829 874 Low vic (veh/h 0.55 0.64 0.65 0.48 ~l' 't r.~:.-...ti Maximum vic High 0.53 Maximum vic Low 0.65 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C

1: Tyne Boulevard & Granny White Pike MD Proposed Conditions-Roundabout Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 14 43 31 40 48 19 15 225 34 25 207 171 Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.77 0.65 0.83 0.67 0.53 0.54 0.87 0.77 0.52 0.89 0.71 Hourly' flow rate h) 20 56 48 48 72 36 28 259 44 48 233 24 Approach Volume (veh/h) 124 156 331 305 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 329 306 124 148 High Capacity (veh/h) 1070 1089 1257 1234 High vic (veh/h) 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.25 Low Capacity (veh/h) 876 893 Low vic (veh/h) 0.14 0.17 t 1045 1024 0.32 0.30 Maximum vic Hi9h 0.26 Maximum vic Low 0.32 --:-:-~l':'" Intersection Capaci Uti ization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A

1: Tyne Boulevard & Granny White Pike PM Proposed Conditions-Roundabout t Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.55 Hourl~ flow rate ( h) 40 Approach Volume (veh/h) Crossing Volume (veh/h) High Capacity (veh/h) High vic (veh/h) Low Capacity (veh/h) Low vic (veh/h) Maximum vic Hi9.h Maximum vic Low Intersection Capacity Utilization 144 42 87 162 41 35 351 43 87 335 26 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.60 0.67 0.92 0.67 0.66 0.86 0.81 200 60 132 249 68 52 382 64 132 390 32 300 449 498 553 653 474 372 433 825 953 1034 984 0.36 0.47 0.48 0.56 659 772 844 800 0.46 0.58 0.59 0.69 0.56 0.69 81.3% ICU Level of Service D

2024 © sportdocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback