TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT River Edge Colorado

TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT River Edge Colorado Submitted by: Fehr & Peers 621 17th Street, Ste. 231 Denver, CO 8293 (33) 296-43 December, 21 App. M-2

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 3 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES... 3 1.3 STUDY CONDITIONS... 6 1.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY... 6 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS... 1 2.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM... 1 2.2 TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES... 1 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION... 12 CHAPTER 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT... 14 CHAPTER 5. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC... 17 5.1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS... 17 5.2 218 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS... 17 5.3 23 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS... 17 5.4 218 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC... 21 5.5 23 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC... 21 CHAPTER 6. ACCESS CODE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENTS... 24 CHAPTER 7. CAPACITY AND LOS ANALYSIS... 25 7.1 EXISTING CAPACITY AND LOS... 25 7.2 218 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS... 26 7.3 218 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC... 28 7.4 23 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS... 3 7.5 23 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC... 32 CHAPTER 8. SIGNAL WARRANT AND PROGRESSION ANALYSIS... 33 8.1 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS... 33 8.2 PROGRESSION ANALYSIS... 34 CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS... 35 i App. M-3

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY... 4 FIGURE 2: SITE LAYOUT... 5 FIGURE 3: EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION... 15 FIGURE 4: ASSIGNED PROJECT TRIPS 218 AND 23... 16 FIGURE 5: ADJUSTED EXISTING COUNTS... 18 FIGURE 6: 218 BACKGROUND VOLUMES... 19 FIGURE 7: 23 BACKGROUND VOLUMES... 2 FIGURE 8: 218 TOTAL TRAFFIC... 22 FIGURE 9: 23 TOTAL TRAFFIC... 23 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA... 7 TABLE 2. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA... 8 TABLE 3: TRIP RATES AND GENERATION TABLE... 13 TABLE 4: EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS... 25 TABLE 5: 218 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS... 26 TABLE 6: MITIGATED 218 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS... 27 TABLE 7: 218 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS... 28 TABLE 8: 218 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT MITIGATED LOS RESULTS... 29 TABLE 11: 23 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS... 32 TABLE 13: PROGRESSION EFFICIENCY... 34 ii App. M-4

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 APPENDICES Appendix A: Existing Traffic Counts Appendix B: Synchro Reports - Existing Appendix C: Synchro reports - Future Appendix D: Signal Warrant Analysis Appendix E: Progression Analysis iii App. M-5

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The River Edge Colorado development is located in Garfield County. It is west of State Highway (SH) 82 approximately six miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The project site encompasses approximately 16 acres. The development is planned to be mostly residential and is proposed to include 366 Residential units comprised of single family homes plus a neighborhood center and a water treatment and maintenance facility. Transportation impacts on SH 82 were assessed for the years 218 and 23 with and without the development. Analysis was conducted based upon CDOT criteria and the existing roadway category. Analysis included intersection Level of Service (LOS), signal warrant analysis, and signal progression analysis. Three intersections were analyzed during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The intersections included: SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road SH 82 at Marand Road SH 82 at Spring Valley Road Spring Valley Road is the closest signalized intersection to the proposed development and is north of the development. 218 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.11 into 218. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 - Re-timing improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS operations during the peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 The westbound right turn should be separated Although Cattle Creek Road and Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersections, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal without the project. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 23 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.31 into 23. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 The eastbound and westbound turn movements should be separated from the through movements. This mitigation will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. 1 App. M-6

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 This intersection will need to be signalized in 23 due to background growth. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be met in the AM and PM peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS C or better during all peak hours. Although Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersection, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 218 Plus Project All River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 218. The following mitigation efforts will be needed with the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 - A signal will be needed at Cattle Creek Road and SH 82 upon buildout. With a signal at Cattle Creek Road, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS B or better during all peak hours. The westbound right turn will not need to be separated if a signal is present. The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. Peak hour signal warrants were conducted for the intersection of Cattle Creek Road at SH 82. Cattle Creek Road is expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 218 with the project. 23 Plus Project Similar to 218 all River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 23. The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. No additional mitigation efforts are recommended. Highway Access Requirements SH 82 is currently a Category E-X roadway. According to the Access Code, direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. The following requirements will be necessary to gain improved access: The spacing of Cattle Creek Road is such that a signal will be appropriate based upon the approximate 1 mile spacing to Spring Valley Road. Auxiliary left turn lanes are required at Cattle Creek Road. The transition taper length will be included with the required storage and deceleration length. A right turn deceleration lane with taper is required for southbound traffic turning onto Cattle Creek Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements To accommodate recreational bicycle activity in the area, a bicycle connection to the RFTA trail near the main entrance should be requested and bicycle traffic internal to the site be considered in the design. Adequate facilities are recommended within the development to accommodate pedestrian traffic throughout the development and to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings at SH 82. 2 App. M-7

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The River Edge Colorado development is located in Garfield County. It is west of State Highway (SH) 82 approximately six miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The project site encompasses approximately 16 acres. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) runs along the east edge of the property, somewhat parallel to SH 82. The Roaring Fork River runs along the west side of the property. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity. Current access to the site exists on SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road. The development is planned to be residential in and is proposed to include 366 Residential units comprised of single family homes plus a neighborhood center and a water treatment and maintenance facility. Figure 2 shows the internal roadway layout and general site layout. 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES This report provides an assessment of potential traffic impacts to SH 82 associated with the development of the River Edge Colorado project. It includes an assessment of traffic operations along three intersections along SH 82. The study intersections included are as follows: SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road SH 82 at Marand Road SH 82 at Spring Valley Road 3 App. M-8

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 1: Project Vicinity 4 App. M-9

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 2: Site Layout 5 App. M-1

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 1.3 STUDY CONDITIONS This traffic impact analysis has been compiled in order to determine what impacts the proposed development will have on the infrastructure system. The AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and Saturday peak hour were included in the study to provide an evaluation of the potential impact of the development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour commuter traffic as well as the weekend peak. The following three conditions were analyzed in this study with the corresponding volumes and network configurations as indicated. These study conditions are consistent with CDOTs Traffic Impact Study guidelines. Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing conditions in the study area were based on turning movement volumes collected in May 21 and the existing roadway, intersection geometry, and traffic control as observed in the field. The counts were adjusted to reflect summer conditions. Analysis included existing summer peak season, peak hour traffic operations, and an assessment of intersection delay and level of service performance. The existing conditions provide a baseline for the future analysis. 218 Background Conditions Analysis of the 218 background traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of background traffic to the study intersections. The analysis of this condition represents volumes associated with traffic growth in the region based upon CDOTs growth rates. 23 Background Conditions Analysis of the 23 background traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of background traffic to the study intersections. The analysis of this condition represents volumes associated with traffic growth in the region based upon CDOTs growth rates. 218 Background Plus Project Conditions Analysis of the 218 background traffic plus project traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of the project in 218. This includes full build out of the development. The volumes include the existing counts with the background growth rate applied to year 218 along SH 82, combined with the sitegenerated trips for all land uses. Project access to SH 82 is via one intersection located at Cattle Creek Road for 218. 23 Background Plus Project Conditions Analysis of the 23 background traffic plus project traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of the project in 23. The volumes include the existing counts with the background growth rate applied to year 23 along SH 82, combined with the site-generated trips for all land uses. Project access to SH 82 is via one intersection located at Cattle Creek Road for 23. 6 App. M-11

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 1.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHOD The traffic operations analysis addressed unsignalized and signalized intersection operations using the procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2 (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2 for the weekday AM and PM peak hour and weekend peak hour traffic operations. Study intersection operations were evaluated using level of service calculations as analyzed in the Synchro software version 7. Level of Service Criteria To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network and corresponding intersections, transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS). LOS is a description of an intersection s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). Signalized Intersections At signalized intersections, traffic conditions were evaluated using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2 (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2. The operation analysis uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the intersection s volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. For signalized intersections the HCM defines the level of service as the average delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections. Table 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Stopped Delay Description (seconds/vehicle) A < 1 Very low delay. Most vehicles do not stop. B 1.1 to 2 Generally good progression of vehicles. Slight delays. C 2.1 to 35 Fair progression. Increased number of stopped vehicles. D 35.1 to 55 Noticeable congestion. Large portion of vehicles stopped. E 55.1 to 8 Poor progression. High delays and frequent cycle failure. F > 8 Oversaturation. Forced flow. Extensive queuing. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2). 7 App. M-12

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Unsignalized Intersections For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the Transportation Research Board s 2 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized intersections was utilized. With this methodology, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled movement. The method incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For all-way stopcontrolled intersections the HCM defines the level of service as the average delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. For side street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is reported for the worst approach. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description a < 1 Little or no conflicting traffic for minor street approach. b 1.1 to 15 Minor street approach begins to notice absence of available gaps. c 15.1 to 25 Minor street approach begins experiencing delay for available gaps. d 25.1 to 35 Minor street approach experiences queuing due to a reduction in available gaps. e 35.1 to 5 Extensive minor street queuing due to insufficient gaps. f > 5 Insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow minor street traffic demand to cross safely through a major traffic stream. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2). Significance Criteria Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service: Garfield County Traffic Study guidelines indicate that all county roads must maintain an overall Level of Service C while intersections should operate at an overall Level of Service D or better. Colorado Department of Transportation minimum design criteria indicate intersections operate at an overall Level of Service D or better. 8 App. M-13

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Significant Impact Criteria: A project typically is considered to have a significant impact at a study intersection when one of the following criteria is satisfied: For Signalized Intersections: When the added project traffic causes an intersection to exceed the Level of Service standard; or when the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) exceeds the established Level of Service standards, and the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent increase in the intersection delay. For Unsignalized Intersections: Queuing of traffic to adjacent intersections would create impeded traffic flows; or excessive delays are determined to create potential safety problems. It is typical for an unsignalized intersection to notice delay higher than 35 seconds (LOS e) for a single approach without meeting signal warrants. Therefore LOS e or better for a single movement at an unsignalized intersection is typically tolerated. 9 App. M-14

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS An assessment of the existing transportation system surrounding the project site was conducted. This provides a clear picture of the system today and sets a baseline for future analysis. 2.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM SH 82 is a regional highway connecting Interstate 7 (I-7) to the north with Highway 24 to the south and east. The speed limit along the highway varies from 55 to 65 miles per hour. Within the vicinity of the River Edge Colorado Development, the roadway is a median divided rural highway with two lanes in each direction. Auxiliary turn lanes exist at full movement intersections as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes. SH 82 is classified as an Expressway, Category E-X by CDOT. SH82 at Marand Road, Looking North North of the site is the intersection of Spring Valley Road. The intersection is signalized at SH 82. On the west side of the intersection is a small park n-ride lot for the transit stop that is located at the intersection. East of the intersection are industrial and commercial uses. Marand Road is located north of the site and is a local 2 lane access roadway on the east side of the highway, providing access to industrial and commercial uses. Access exists to a former restaurant site which is currently vacant on the west side of the highway directly across from Marand Road. The access is unsignalized and full movement. Cattle Creek Road intersects CR 11 and the frontage road prior to intersecting SH 82 on the east side of Highway 82. Commercial uses exist along CR 11. West of SH 82, the land is currently undeveloped. The intersection is a full movement access. 2.2 TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Transit Facilities The Roaring Fork Transit Authority currently operates along SH 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. Valley fare buses operate as Local L and Express X buses. Both L and X busses stop at the intersection of Spring Valley Road and SH 82 on the near side of the intersection. Bus Shelter at Spring Valley Road 1 App. M-15

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The Rio Grande Trail is a multi-use trail system that travels from I-7 to the north to Aspen and runs parallel to SH 82 on the west side of the highway in the vicinity of the site. This trail was built within the former rail corridor of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) Aspen Branch. In 1997, the rail corridor and track were purchased using a combination of funding from local governments, Great Outdoors Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. This purchase presented an opportunity to explore transportation alternatives to SH 82 congestion and the challenge of creating recreation connectivity in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Roaring Fork Transit Authority manages and maintains the Rio Grande Trail with the Roaring Fork Valley. Popular recreational bicycle routes in the area include loops on Cattle Creek Road and Spring Valley Road east of Highway 82 to the RFTA trail. The photo to the right shows the mapmyride routes in the area. The roadways in the area have limited to no sidewalks. 11 App. M-16

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The vehicle trips associated with the River Edge Colorado project were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition. Trip generation forecasts were developed for full buildout of the property. The ITE method consists of choosing an appropriate independent variable for each land use for a particular time of day. The value of the independent variable is multiplied by a weighted average rate or inserted into a regression equation to calculate the trips generated by each land use. The ITE land uses planned for development are Single Family Housing (21) and Recreation Center (495) Table 3 shows the proposed project trip generation. The notes following the table indicate the regression equation used to generate trips. 12 App. M-17

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 TABLE 3: TRIP RATES AND GENERATION TABLE Trip Generation Rates [a] Estimated Trip Generation Land Use Size ITE Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Code Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out Rate In Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Housing 366 du 21 [b] [b] 25% 75% [b] 63% 37% [b] 53% 47% 3,43 66 2 266 213 125 338 178 158 335 Recreation Center 6. ksf 495 22.8 1.62 61% 39% 1.45 37% 63% 1.7 54% 46% 137 6 4 1 3 6 9 3 3 6 TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS 3,567 72 24 276 216 131 347 181 161 341 Notes: [a] [b] Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ITE 21 trip generation equations used rather than linear trip generation rate: Daily: Ln(T) =.92 * Ln(x) + 2.71, where T = trips, x = area in ksf AM Peak Hour: T =.7 * x + 9.74, where T = trips, x = area in ksf PM Peak Hour: LN(T) =.9 *LN(x) +.51, where T = trips, x = area in ksf Sat Peak Hour: T =.89 *x + 9.56, where T = trips, x = area in ksf The Maintenance Facility is not expected to generate peak hour trips that will effect SH 82 and has not been included App. M-18 13

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution was based upon existing traffic patterns. In general, 65% of the traffic along SH 82 travels south towards Carbondale in the AM peak, leaving 35% to travel north. In the evening the traffic shifts so that 35% travels south and 65% travels north. Saturday peak hour traffic is more evenly split between northbound and southbound traffic at 5% to 5%. Figure 3 shows the external trip distribution. Traffic was assigned based upon: One access point onto SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in 218 One access point onto SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in 23 Figure 4 shows the project trips as assigned. 14 App. M-19

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 3: External Trip Distribution 15 App. M-2

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 4: Assigned Project Trips 218 and 23 16 App. M-21

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 5. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC 5.1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Existing Traffic counts were conducted in May 21 by All Traffic Data for AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. These counts were adjusted to reflect summer peak traffic. According to CDOT records, May traffic is.8 times the average annual traffic. Summer peaks are noticed in July along SH 82 and are 1.25 of the average annual traffic. The counts were factored up by 1.56 to reflect the summer peak. Figure 5 shows the adjusted, existing counts along SH 82 and the intersection lane configuration. Appendix A contains the unadjusted traffic count data. 5.2 218 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Background traffic projections were developed for year 218. Background traffic is the traffic that is expected to travel along SH 82 irrespective of the development. Traffic volumes on SH 82 can be expected to increase in accordance with historical growth rates, and background traffic, without the development can be estimated using annualized rates of growth developed from the Colorado Department of Transportation 2-year growth factor for this segment of SH 82. Calculations based on the CDOT 2-year growth factor produced an eight-year composite growth factor (21 to 218) of 1.11. These volumes provide the baseline conditions for comparative purposes with the total traffic projections including the project. Figure 6 shows the projected 218 background peak hour volumes at each of the study intersections. 5.3 23 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Background traffic projections were developed for year 23. Background traffic is the traffic that is expected to travel along SH 82 irrespective of the development. Traffic volumes on SH 82 can be expected to increase in accordance with historical growth rates, and background traffic, without the development can be estimated using annualized rates of growth developed from the Colorado Department of Transportation 2-year growth factor for this segment of SH 82. The CDOT 2-year growth factor is 1.31. These volumes provide the baseline conditions for comparative purposes with the total traffic projections including the project. Figure 7 shows the projected 23 background peak hour volumes at each of the study intersections. 17 App. M-22

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 5: Adjusted Existing Counts 18 App. M-23

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 6: 218 Background Volumes 19 App. M-24

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 7: 23 Background Volumes 2 App. M-25

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 5.4 218 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC The total site generated traffic will be a combination of background traffic and project traffic generated from the new development. Figure 8 show the total traffic along SH 82 for 218 conditions plus project. 5.5 23 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC The total site generated traffic will be a combination of background traffic and project traffic generated from the new development. Figure 9 show the total traffic along SH 82 for 23 conditions plus project. 21 App. M-26

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 8: 218 Total Traffic 22 App. M-27

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Figure 9: 23 Total Traffic 23 App. M-28

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 6. ACCESS CODE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENTS According to the State Highway Access Code Direct access from a subdivision to the highway shall be permitted only if the proposed access meets the purposes and requirements of the Code. Local traffic from a subdivision abutting a state highway shall be served by an internal street system of adequate capacity, intersecting and connecting with state highways in a manner that is safe as well as consistent with the assigned access category (Code Section Three) and design requirements (Code Section Four). SH 82 is designated as an Expressway (Category E-X). This category is appropriate for use on highways that have the capacity for high speed and relatively high traffic volumes in an efficient and safe manner. They provide for interstate, interregional, intraregional, and intercity travel needs and to a lesser degree, some intracity travel needs. Direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. Typical spacing of intersecting streets, roads and highways shall be planned on intervals of one mile and normally based upon section lines where appropriate. One-half mile spacing of public ways may be permitted to the highway only when no reasonable alternative access to the general street system exists. No access to private property may be permitted unless reasonable access cannot be obtained from the general street system. When private access is permitted, left turns may be allowed if in the opinion of the department such left turns can be reasonably accomplished and it is not a divided highway. When direct private access is permitted, appropriate terms and conditions shall be included in the permit to achieve the following criteria; a) the access should be closed when other reasonable access to a lower functional street, road or highway is reasonably available, b) the access permit should specify under what circumstances the closure may be required, and c) if known, the future access location and the date the closure may occur. The following lists the auxiliary requirements based upon the Expressway (Category E-X) requirements: A left turn deceleration lane will be required for Cattle Creek Road left turn pocket. The transition taper length will be included within the required deceleration length. A right turn lane with deceleration and taper lengths will be required for Cattle Creek Road for the southbound right turning traffic. Signal progression analysis must indicate a 4 percent efficiency or better or shall not degrade the existing progression. (See Chapter 8) Signals at intersections with major cross streets or roads of equal importance may be programmed to optimize traffic on both streets equally. Cross-streets of lesser importance need not be optimized equally. 24 App. M-29

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 7. CAPACITY AND LOS ANALYSIS 7.1 EXISTING CAPACITY AND LOS Table 4 provides the results of the existing capacity analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. TABLE 4: EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 23 C P.M. 41 D SAT 18 B A.M. 22 c P.M. 51 f SAT 23 c A.M. 41 e P.M. >1 f SAT 23 c Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 4, the intersections currently operate at acceptable levels during peak hours except the westbound side street stopped approaches at Marand Road and at Cattle Creek Road in the PM peak hours. Peak hour signal warrants are not expected to be met at either intersection. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. Appendix B provides the LOS calculations for the existing conditions analysis. 25 App. M-3

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 7.2 218 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS Table 5 provides the results of the 218 capacity analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours without the development assuming the same geometry as existing conditions. TABLE 5: 218 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 27 C P.M. 69 E SAT 19 B A.M. 26 d P.M. 82 f SAT 27 d A.M. 71 f P.M. >1 f SAT 29 d Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 5, Marand Road continues to notice significant side street delay during the PM peak hour. Cattle Creek Road notices significant side street delay during AM and PM peak hours. Marand Road at SH 82 is not expected to meet peak hour warrants. Partial mitigation at Cattle Creek Road includes separating the westbound left turn and right turn movements. The AM peak hour warrant is expected to be met, however the PM peak hour warrant is not expected to be met, full signal warrants are not expected to be met and delay will continue to be noticed. The signalized intersection of Spring Valley Road notices overall delay in the PM peak. Mitigation at this intersection would require adjustment of the signal timing at the intersection. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. 26 App. M-31

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Table 6 shows the operational improvements with the noted mitigation above for Cattle Creek Road and Spring Valley Road. TABLE 6: MITIGATED 218 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 18 B P.M. 46 D SAT 17 B A.M. 26 d P.M. 82 f SAT 27 d A.M. 44 e P.M. >1 f SAT 23 c Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 6, delay will continue to be noticed for the side street stop controlled intersections in the PM peak hour. 27 App. M-32

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 7.3 218 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC As mentioned previously, all project traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road. Table 7 provides the results of the 218 plus project capacity analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The mitigation previously mentioned for Spring Valley Road was assumed to be in place. TABLE 7: 218 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 28 C P.M. 51 D SAT 19 B A.M. 28 d P.M. 99 f SAT 3 d A.M. >1 f P.M. >1 f SAT 61 f Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 7, the intersection of Marand Road continues to notice significant delay during the PM peak hour due to the westbound approach delay. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 also continues to notice significant delay. Analysis assumes geometry based upon existing conditions To mitigate the excessive delay at Cattle Creek Road, a signal is needed. A signal at this intersection is expected to meet AM and PM peak hour warrants. A signal warrant and progression analysis was completed and is described in Chapter 8. The Marand Road intersection is not expected to meet peak hour warrants in 218. Delay at this intersection will continue to be noticed. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. 28 App. M-33

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 Table 8 provides the mitigated results. TABLE 8: 218 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT MITIGATED LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIGNAL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 28 C P.M. 51 D SAT 18 B A.M. 28 d P.M. 99 f SAT 3 d A.M. 13 B P.M. 13 B SAT 7 A Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 8, the suggested mitigation alleviates delay at the intersection of SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road. 29 App. M-34

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 7.4 23 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS Build out of the River Edge Colorado development is expected to be completed around 218. However, in the event the project is not completed or in place by 23, an analysis of background traffic in 23 was completed. TABLE 9: 23 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 23 C P.M. 95 F SAT 2 B A.M. 38 e P.M. >1 f SAT 37 e A.M. >1 f P.M. >1 f SAT 32 d Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 9, Spring Valley Road intersection notices significant delay during the PM peak hour. Marand Road continues to notice significant side street delay during the PM peak hour. Cattle Creek Road notices significant side street delay during AM and PM peak hours. In order to mitigate the delay at Spring Valley Road, the westbound and eastbound turning movements need to be separated from the through movements. Marand Road at SH 82 is not expected to meet peak hour warrants. Mitigation at Cattle Creek Road includes signalizing the intersection. Both AM and PM peak hour warrants are expected to be met. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. 3 App. M-35

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 TABLE 1: MITIGATED 23 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIGNAL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 23 C P.M. 43 D SAT 2 B A.M. 38 e P.M. >1 f SAT 37 e A.M. 12 B P.M. 22 C SAT 5 A Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 1, the suggested mitigation alleviates delay for the intersections of SH 82 at Spring Valley Road and SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road. 31 App. M-36

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 7.5 23 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC All project traffic will access SH 82 to Cattle Creek Road. Table 11 provides the results of the 23 plus project analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The background mitigation for Spring Valley Road and Cattle Creek Road were assumed to be in place. TABLE 11: 23 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control 1. 2. 3. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL SIGNAL Peak Hour Delay Existing LOS A.M. 24 C P.M. 43 D SAT 21 C A.M. 42 e P.M. >1 f SAT 43 e A.M. 19 B P.M. 32 C SAT 7 A Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 11, Marand Road westbound side street stop control approach continues to notice delay during all peak hours, however signal warrants are not expected to be met. No additional mitigation is recommended. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. 32 App. M-37

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 8. SIGNAL WARRANT AND PROGRESSION ANALYSIS 8.1 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS A signal warrant analysis was performed on the two side-street stop-controlled intersections that operated with high levels of delay: Marand Road/ SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road/ SH 82. The warrants identified in the Federal Highway Administration s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used for the analysis. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant, the Four-hour Volume Warrant, and other relevant factors were considered in evaluating the addition of signal operations at these intersections. Appendix D contains the signal warrant analysis worksheets. Peak Hour Warrant The Peak Hour Warrant, which compares the volumes at an intersection during the peak hour of operation to the warrant requirements for the major street and minor street traffic, was evaluated for the scenario in the 218 and 23 plus project conditions. The rural warrants were used for both intersections. 218 Cattle Creek Road/ SH 82 was considered for signalization as a mitigation measure. Cattle Creek Road is expected to meet the AM peak hour warrants without the project. Both AM and PM peak hour warrants are expected to be met with the project in 218. Marand Road is not expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 218. If project build-out happens prior to 218, signal warrants will most likely be met by that time. 23 Peak hour warrants were run in 23 without the project in the case the project was not built. Without the project, Cattle Creek Road meets both AM and PM peak hour warrants. Marand Road is not expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 23 with or without the project. 33 App. M-38

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 8.2 PROGRESSION ANALYSIS A signal progression analysis was completed to ensure SH 82 will operate with the appropriate efficiently based upon the existing category of the highway. CDOT requires an efficiency of at least 4. Efficiency represents the proportion of all green time that is in progression along a corridor. As a guideline, efficiency below 12% is considered poor, efficiency between 13% to 24% is considered fair, and efficiency between 25 to 36% is good. Great progression is anything over 36%. Table 12 provides the 9 th percentile arterial bandwidths on SH 82 the AM and PM peak hours for horizon year 218 and 23 plus project. TABLE 12: PROGRESSION EFFICIENCY Scenario Peak Hour Cycle Length (Seconds) 9th Percentile Bandwidth (%) 218 A.M. 1 49 P.M. 12 59 23 A.M. 1 53 P.M. 12 52 As shown in Table 12, both 218 and 23 scenarios with the project meet the minimum 4% efficiency for the highway. Appendix E provides the Time Space Diagrams of the progression analysis completed with Synchro 7. 34 App. M-39

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 218 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.11 into 218. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 - Re-timing improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS operations during the peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 The westbound right turn should be separated Although Cattle Creek Road and Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersections, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal without the project. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 23 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.31 into 23. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 The eastbound and westbound turn movements should be separated from the through movements. This mitigation will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 This intersection will need to be signalized in 23 due to background growth. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be met in the AM and PM peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS C or better during all peak hours. Although Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersection, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 218 Plus Project All River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 218. The following mitigation efforts will be needed with the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 - A signal will be needed at Cattle Creek Road and SH 82 upon buildout. With a signal at Cattle Creek Road, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS B or better during all peak hours. The westbound right turn will not need to be separated if a signal is present. 35 App. M-4

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. Peak hour signal warrants were conducted for the intersection of Cattle Creek Road at SH 82. Cattle Creek Road is expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 218 with the project. 23 Plus Project Similar to 218 all River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 23. The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. No additional mitigation efforts are recommended. Highway Access Requirements SH 82 is currently a Category E-X roadway. According to the Access Code, direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. The following requirements will be necessary to gain improved access: The spacing of Cattle Creek Road is such that a signal will be appropriate based upon the approximate 1 mile spacing to Spring Valley Road. Auxiliary left turn lanes are required at Cattle Creek Road. The transition taper length will be included with the required storage and deceleration length. A right turn deceleration lane with taper is required for southbound traffic turning onto Cattle Creek Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements To accommodate recreational bicycle activity in the area, a bicycle connection to the RFTA trail near the main entrance should be requested and bicycle traffic internal to the site be considered in the design. Adequate facilities are recommended within the development to accommodate pedestrian traffic throughout the development and to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings at SH 82. 36 App. M-41

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 APPENDIX A: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS App. M-42

File Name : AM_1628 SH82&CR113 Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 7: AM 4 288 12 1 75 1 399 7:15 AM 6 276 14 4 99 6 45 7:3 AM 17 256 21 13 121 1 438 7:45 AM 7 227 25 11 121 4 395 Total 34 147 72 38 416 3 1637 8: AM 8 235 1 15 125 9 42 8:15 AM 9 213 8 6 146 6 388 8:3 AM 3 199 13 1 137 9 371 8:45 AM 8 192 14 12 15 9 385 Total 28 839 45 43 558 33 1546 Grand Total 62 1886 117 81 974 63 3183 Apprch % 3.2 96.8 59.1 4.9 93.9 6.1 Total % 1.9 59.3 3.7 2.5 3.6 2 Class 1 62 1839 117 66 946 63 393 % Class 1 1 97.5 1 81.5 97.1 1 97.2 TRUCKS 47 15 28 9 % TRUCKS 2.5 18.5 2.9 2.8 App. M-43

File Name : AM_1628 SH82&CR113 Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 7: AM to 8:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 7:15 AM 7:15 AM 6 276 282 14 4 18 99 6 15 45 7:3 AM 17 256 273 21 13 34 121 1 131 438 7:45 AM 7 227 234 25 11 36 121 4 125 395 8: AM 8 235 243 1 15 25 125 9 134 42 Total Volume 38 994 132 7 43 113 466 29 495 164 % App. Total 3.7 96.3 61.9 38.1 94.1 5.9 PHF.559.9...915.7..717..785..932.725..924......936 SH82 Out In Total 59 132 1541 Rght 994 Thru 38 Left Peds Peak Hour Data CR113 Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds Peak Hour Begins at 7:15 AM Class 1 TRUCKS North 43 7 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 67 113 18 CR113 Left Thru 466 Rght 29 Peds 164 495 1559 Out In Total SH82 App. M-44

File Name : PM_1628 SH82&CR113 Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 4: PM 3 123 1 1 13 242 19 411 4:15 PM 5 134 8 1 2 276 11 455 4:3 PM 8 135 8 18 39 15 493 4:45 PM 3 171 11 2 18 295 11 511 Total 19 563 37 4 69 1122 56 187 5: PM 5 183 16 1 14 34 13 536 5:15 PM 5 151 7 2 14 313 9 51 5:3 PM 6 146 9 1 11 27 14 457 5:45 PM 7 125 9 1 13 242 1 47 Total 23 65 41 5 52 1129 46 191 Grand Total 42 1168 78 9 121 2251 12 3771 Apprch % 3.5 96.5 37.5 4.3 58.2 95.7 4.3 Total % 1.1 31 2.1.2 3.2 59.7 2.7 Class 1 42 1132 78 121 226 12 3681 % Class 1 1 96.9 1 1 98 1 97.6 TRUCKS 36 9 45 9 % TRUCKS 3.1 1 2 2.4 App. M-45

File Name : PM_1628 SH82&CR113 Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 4: PM to 5:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 4:3 PM 4:3 PM 8 135 143 8 18 26 39 15 324 493 4:45 PM 3 171 174 11 2 18 31 295 11 36 511 5: PM 5 183 188 16 1 14 31 34 13 317 536 5:15 PM 5 151 156 7 2 14 23 313 9 322 51 Total Volume 21 64 661 42 5 64 111 1221 48 1269 241 % App. Total 3.2 96.8 37.8 4.5 57.7 96.2 3.8 PHF.656.874...879.656.625.889..895..975.8..979......952 SH82 Out In Total 1285 661 1946 Rght 64 Thru 21 Left Peds Peak Hour Data CR113 Out In Total 5 5 Thru Left Rght Peds Peak Hour Begins at 4:3 PM Class 1 TRUCKS North 64 5 42 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 69 111 18 CR113 Left Thru 1221 Rght 48 Peds 682 1269 1951 Out In Total SH82 App. M-46

File Name : NOON_16281 SH82&CR113 Site Code : Start Date : 5/22/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 11: AM 4 128 6 1 16 6 314 11:15 AM 3 133 5 8 165 3 317 11:3 AM 9 121 3 8 19 9 34 11:45 AM 5 133 12 11 163 6 33 Total 21 515 26 37 678 24 131 12: PM 1 148 6 6 186 5 352 12:15 PM 5 149 5 12 158 11 34 12:3 PM 134 4 1 171 7 326 12:45 PM 3 14 5 12 148 5 313 Total 9 571 2 4 663 28 1331 Grand Total 3 186 46 77 1341 52 2632 Apprch % 2.7 97.3 37.4 62.6 96.3 3.7 Total % 1.1 41.3 1.7 2.9 5.9 2 Class 1 3 173 46 72 1322 52 2595 % Class 1 1 98.8 1 93.5 98.6 1 98.6 TRUCKS 13 5 19 37 % TRUCKS 1.2 6.5 1.4 1.4 App. M-47

File Name : NOON_16281 SH82&CR113 Site Code : Start Date : 5/22/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11: AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:3 AM 11:3 AM 9 121 13 3 8 11 19 9 199 34 11:45 AM 5 133 138 12 11 23 163 6 169 33 12: PM 1 148 149 6 6 12 186 5 191 352 12:15 PM 5 149 154 5 12 17 158 11 169 34 Total Volume 2 551 571 26 37 63 697 31 728 1362 % App. Total 3.5 96.5 41.3 58.7 95.7 4.3 PHF.556.924...927.542..771..685..917.75..915......967 SH82 Out In Total 734 571 135 Rght 551 Thru 2 Left Peds Peak Hour Data CR113 Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds Peak Hour Begins at 11:3 AM Class 1 TRUCKS North 37 26 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 51 63 114 CR113 Left Thru 697 Rght 31 Peds 577 728 135 Out In Total SH82 App. M-48

File Name : AM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 7: AM 2 286 12 4 75 1 389 7:15 AM 2 279 11 12 5 399 7:3 AM 1 249 9 4 126 5 394 7:45 AM 1 242 1 124 4 381 Total 6 156 42 8 427 24 1563 8: AM 4 232 8 2 13 11 387 8:15 AM 4 218 6 2 151 8 389 8:3 AM 1 191 4 3 134 4 337 8:45 AM 4 198 11 3 156 9 381 Total 13 839 29 1 571 32 1494 Grand Total 19 1895 71 18 998 56 357 Apprch % 1 99 79.8 2.2 94.7 5.3 Total %.6 62 2.3.6 32.6 1.8 Class 1 19 1837 71 18 96 56 2961 % Class 1 1 96.9 1 1 96.2 1 96.9 TRUCKS 58 38 96 % TRUCKS 3.1 3.8 3.1 SH82 Out In Total 978 1856 2834 38 58 96 116 1914 293 Rght 1837 58 1895 Thru 19 19 Left Peds MARAND RD Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds 5/2/21 7: AM 5/2/21 8:45 AM Class 1 TRUCKS North Rght Thru Left Peds 18 18 71 71 Out In Total 75 89 164 75 89 164 MARAND RD Left Thru 96 38 998 Rght 56 56 Peds 198 116 2924 58 38 96 1966 154 32 Out In Total SH82 App. M-49

File Name : AM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 7: AM to 8:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 7: AM 7: AM 2 286 288 12 4 16 75 1 85 389 7:15 AM 2 279 281 11 11 12 5 17 399 7:3 AM 1 249 25 9 4 13 126 5 131 394 7:45 AM 1 242 243 1 1 124 4 128 381 Total Volume 6 156 162 42 8 5 427 24 451 1563 % App. Total.6 99.4 84 16 94.7 5.3 PHF.75.923...922.875..5..781..847.6..861......979 SH82 Out In Total 435 162 1497 Rght 156 Thru 6 Left Peds Peak Hour Data MARAND RD Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds Peak Hour Begins at 7: AM Class 1 TRUCKS North 8 42 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 3 5 8 MARAND RD Left Thru 427 Rght 24 Peds 198 451 1549 Out In Total SH82 App. M-5

File Name : PM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCK SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 4: PM 5 132 3 8 251 6 45 4:15 PM 126 2 4 276 17 425 4:3 PM 138 6 7 314 6 471 4:45 PM 176 4 7 35 9 51 Total 5 572 15 26 1146 38 182 5: PM 1 18 4 8 31 13 57 5:15 PM 2 154 3 1 323 8 5 5:3 PM 152 2 2 279 13 448 5:45 PM 13 4 25 7 391 Total 3 616 13 2 1153 41 1846 Grand Total 8 1188 28 46 2299 79 3648 Apprch %.7 99.3 37.8 62.2 96.7 3.3 Total %.2 32.6.8 1.3 63 2.2 Class 1 8 1137 28 46 2243 79 3541 % Class 1 1 95.7 1 1 97.6 1 97.1 TRUCK 51 56 17 % TRUCK 4.3 2.4 2.9 SH82 Out In Total 2289 1145 3434 56 51 17 2345 1196 3541 Rght 1137 51 1188 Thru 8 8 Left Peds MARAND RD Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds 5/2/21 4: PM 5/2/21 5:45 PM Class 1 TRUCK North Rght Thru Left Peds 46 46 28 28 Out In Total 87 74 161 87 74 161 MARAND RD Left Thru 2243 56 2299 Rght 79 79 Peds 1165 2322 3487 51 56 17 1216 2378 3594 Out In Total SH82 App. M-51

File Name : PM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 4: PM to 5:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 4:3 PM 4:3 PM 138 138 6 7 13 314 6 32 471 4:45 PM 176 176 4 7 11 35 9 314 51 5: PM 1 18 181 4 8 12 31 13 314 57 5:15 PM 2 154 156 3 1 13 323 8 331 5 Total Volume 3 648 651 17 32 49 1243 36 1279 1979 % App. Total.5 99.5 34.7 65.3 97.2 2.8 PHF.375.9...899.78..8..942..962.692..966......976 SH82 Out In Total 1275 651 1926 Rght 648 Thru 3 Left Peds Peak Hour Data MARAND RD Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds Peak Hour Begins at 4:3 PM Class 1 TRUCK North 32 17 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 39 49 88 MARAND RD Left Thru 1243 Rght 36 Peds 665 1279 1944 Out In Total SH82 App. M-52

File Name : NOON_16282 SH82&MARAND Site Code : Start Date : 5/22/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 11: AM 127 3 2 169 4 35 11:15 AM 1 141 3 174 5 324 11:3 AM 2 124 2 1 22 7 338 11:45 AM 131 7 1 163 3 35 Total 3 523 15 4 78 19 1272 12: PM 156 2 4 181 2 345 12:15 PM 147 1 3 163 1 315 12:3 PM 1 139 2 1 18 5 328 12:45 PM 137 3 1 155 7 33 Total 1 579 8 9 679 15 1291 Grand Total 4 112 23 13 1387 34 2563 Apprch %.4 99.6 63.9 36.1 97.6 2.4 Total %.2 43.9.5 54.1 1.3 Class 1 4 178 23 13 1352 34 254 % Class 1 1 97.8 1 1 97.5 1 97.7 TRUCKS 24 35 59 % TRUCKS 2.2 2.5 2.3 SH82 Out In Total 1365 182 2447 35 24 59 14 116 256 Rght 178 24 112 Thru 4 4 Left Peds MARAND RD Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds 5/22/21 11: AM 5/22/21 12:45 PM Class 1 TRUCKS North Rght Thru Left Peds 13 13 23 23 Out In Total 38 36 74 38 36 74 MARAND RD Left Thru 1352 35 1387 Rght 34 34 Peds 111 1386 2487 24 35 59 1125 1421 2546 Out In Total SH82 App. M-53

File Name : NOON_16282 SH82&MARAND Site Code : Start Date : 5/22/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11: AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:15 AM 11:15 AM 1 141 142 3 3 174 5 179 324 11:3 AM 2 124 126 2 1 3 22 7 29 338 11:45 AM 131 131 7 1 8 163 3 166 35 12: PM 156 156 2 4 6 181 2 183 345 Total Volume 3 552 555 14 6 2 72 17 737 1312 % App. Total.5 99.5 7 3 97.7 2.3 PHF.375.885...889.5..375..625..891.67..882......951 SH82 Out In Total 726 555 1281 Rght 552 Thru 3 Left Peds Peak Hour Data MARAND RD Out In Total Thru Left Rght Peds Peak Hour Begins at 11:15 AM Class 1 TRUCKS North 6 14 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 2 2 4 MARAND RD Left Thru 72 Rght 17 Peds 566 737 133 Out In Total SH82 App. M-54

File Name : AM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 7: AM 2 241 12 21 6 12 2 63 3 3 13 19 1 416 7:15 AM 28 236 9 13 8 7 6 87 2 12 3 26 437 7:3 AM 27 24 13 8 3 19 1 17 7 7 2 27 1 435 7:45 AM 24 198 7 16 8 21 16 15 2 6 11 29 443 Total 99 879 41 58 25 59 34 362 14 28 29 11 2 1731 8: AM 26 187 11 18 4 11 2 1 112 6 5 9 14 415 8:15 AM 21 179 12 1 16 4 2 1 9 13 5 5 8 2 1 432 8:3 AM 23 155 9 12 4 11 1 13 116 7 1 5 4 17 3 381 8:45 AM 17 16 12 13 3 18 14 137 5 4 8 17 48 Total 87 681 44 1 59 15 6 4 46 495 23 1 19 29 68 4 1636 Grand Total 186 156 85 1 117 4 119 4 8 857 37 1 47 58 169 6 3367 Apprch % 1.2 85.2 4.6.1 41.8 14.3 42.5 1.4 8.2 87.9 3.8.1 16.8 2.7 6.4 2.1 Total % 5.5 46.3 2.5 3.5 1.2 3.5.1 2.4 25.5 1.1 1.4 1.7 5.2 SH82 Out In Total 123 1832 2855 85 Rght 156 Thru 186 Left 1 Peds SPRING VALLEY RD Out In Total 25 28 485 47 Left 58 Thru 169 Rght 6 Peds 5/2/21 7: AM 5/2/21 8:45 AM Class 1 North 119 4 117 4 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 281 28 561 SPRING VALLEY RD Left 8 Thru 857 Rght 37 Peds 1 1846 975 2821 Out In Total SH82 App. M-55

File Name : AM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 7: AM to 8:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 7: AM 7: AM 2 241 12 273 21 6 12 39 2 63 3 68 3 13 19 1 36 416 7:15 AM 28 236 9 273 13 8 7 28 6 87 2 95 12 3 26 41 437 7:3 AM 27 24 13 244 8 3 19 3 1 17 7 124 7 2 27 1 37 435 7:45 AM 24 198 7 229 16 8 21 45 16 15 2 123 6 11 29 46 443 Total Volume 99 879 41 119 58 25 59 142 34 362 14 41 28 29 11 2 16 1731 % App. Total 9.7 86.3 4 4.8 17.6 41.5 8.3 88.3 3.4 17.5 18.1 63.1 1.2 PHF.884.912.788..933.69.781.72..789.531.846.5..827.583.558.871.5.87.977 SH82 Out In Total 449 119 1468 41 Rght 879 Thru 99 Left Peds Peak Hour Data SPRING VALLEY RD Out In Total 1 16 26 28 Left 29 Thru 11 Rght 2 Peds Peak Hour Begins at 7: AM Class 1 North 59 25 58 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 142 142 284 SPRING VALLEY RD Left 34 Thru 362 Rght 14 Peds 138 41 1448 Out In Total SH82 App. M-56

File Name : PM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 4: PM 26 16 7 12 4 3 2 227 4 14 6 9 465 4:15 PM 21 15 8 16 4 18 19 25 4 13 1 12 471 4:3 PM 23 114 7 1 9 24 17 284 6 12 18 7 531 4:45 PM 25 147 8 8 6 15 17 273 3 16 9 7 534 Total 95 472 3 46 23 87 73 134 17 55 34 35 21 5: PM 3 151 4 15 1 28 1 22 272 8 17 4 12 1 566 5:15 PM 27 127 7 5 13 33 1 24 291 8 6 7 7 556 5:3 PM 21 126 7 15 9 24 29 251 12 13 5 7 519 5:45 PM 27 14 4 6 2 25 8 229 7 7 9 12 44 Total 15 58 22 41 25 11 2 83 143 35 43 25 38 1 281 Grand Total 2 98 52 87 48 197 2 156 277 52 98 59 73 1 482 Apprch % 16.2 79.5 4.2 26 14.4 59.6 6.8 9.9 2.3 42.4 25.5 31.6.4 Total % 4.9 24 1.3 2.1 1.2 4.8 3.8 5.9 1.3 2.4 1.4 1.8 SH82 Out In Total 2372 1232 364 52 Rght 98 Thru 2 Left Peds SPRING VALLEY RD Out In Total 256 231 487 98 Left 59 Thru 73 Rght 1 Peds 5/2/21 4: PM 5/2/21 5:45 PM Class 1 North 197 48 87 2 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 311 334 645 SPRING VALLEY RD Left 156 Thru 277 Rght 52 Peds 114 2285 3425 Out In Total SH82 App. M-57

File Name : PM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : Start Date : 5/2/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 4: PM to 5:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 4:3 PM 4:3 PM 23 114 7 144 1 9 24 43 17 284 6 37 12 18 7 37 531 4:45 PM 25 147 8 18 8 6 15 29 17 273 3 293 16 9 7 32 534 5: PM 3 151 4 185 15 1 28 1 45 22 272 8 32 17 4 12 1 34 566 5:15 PM 27 127 7 161 5 13 33 1 52 24 291 8 323 6 7 7 2 556 Total Volume 15 539 26 67 38 29 1 2 169 8 112 25 1225 51 38 33 1 123 2187 % App. Total 15.7 8.4 3.9 22.5 17.2 59.2 1.2 6.5 91.4 2 41.5 3.9 26.8.8 PHF.875.892.813..95.633.558.758.5.813.833.962.781..948.75.528.688.25.831.966 SH82 Out In Total 1271 67 1941 26 Rght 539 Thru 15 Left Peds Peak Hour Data SPRING VALLEY RD Out In Total 135 123 258 51 Left 38 Thru 33 Rght 1 Peds Peak Hour Begins at 4:3 PM Class 1 North 1 29 38 2 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 168 169 337 SPRING VALLEY RD Left 8 Thru 112 Rght 25 Peds 61 1225 1835 Out In Total SH82 App. M-58

File Name : NOON_16285 SH82&SPRING Site Code : Start Date : 5/22/21 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 11: AM 18 18 6 14 3 17 1 15 6 6 6 9 1 354 11:15 AM 9 122 6 8 3 19 3 6 154 11 6 3 6 356 11:3 AM 17 17 6 6 6 35 11 179 9 5 3 6 39 11:45 AM 2 114 7 6 3 15 1 11 143 8 3 1 12 344 Total 64 451 25 34 15 86 4 38 626 34 2 13 33 1 1444 12: PM 19 139 5 8 1 14 11 161 7 2 2 5 374 12:15 PM 19 118 5 1 1 19 1 18 145 5 4 2 14 1 362 12:3 PM 6 121 4 8 2 18 4 161 4 4 2 8 342 12:45 PM 12 119 7 13 5 11 11 136 6 6 3 11 34 Total 56 497 21 39 9 62 1 44 63 22 16 9 38 1 1418 Grand Total 12 948 46 73 24 148 5 82 1229 56 36 22 71 2 2862 Apprch % 1.8 85.1 4.1 29.2 9.6 59.2 2 6 89.9 4.1 27.5 16.8 54.2 1.5 Total % 4.2 33.1 1.6 2.6.8 5.2.2 2.9 42.9 2 1.3.8 2.5.1 App. M-59

File Name : NOON_16285 SH82&SPRING Site Code : Start Date : 5/22/21 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11: AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:3 AM 11:3 AM 17 17 6 13 6 6 35 47 11 179 9 199 5 3 6 14 39 11:45 AM 2 114 7 141 6 3 15 1 25 11 143 8 162 3 1 12 16 344 12: PM 19 139 5 163 8 1 14 23 11 161 7 179 2 2 5 9 374 12:15 PM 19 118 5 142 1 1 19 1 31 18 145 5 168 4 2 14 1 21 362 Total Volume 75 478 23 576 3 11 83 2 126 51 628 29 78 14 8 37 1 6 147 % App. Total 13 83 4 23.8 8.7 65.9 1.6 7.2 88.7 4.1 23.3 13.3 61.7 1.7 PHF.938.86.821..883.75.458.593.5.67.78.877.86..889.7.667.661.25.714.942 SH82 Out In Total 725 576 131 23 Rght 478 Thru 75 Left Peds Peak Hour Data SPRING VALLEY RD Out In Total 85 6 145 14 Left 8 Thru 37 Rght 1 Peds Peak Hour Begins at 11:3 AM Class 1 North 83 11 3 2 Rght Thru Left Peds Out In Total 112 126 238 SPRING VALLEY RD Left 51 Thru 628 Rght 29 Peds 545 78 1253 Out In Total SH82 App. M-6

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 APPENDIX B: SYNCHRO REPORTS - EXISTING App. M-61

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 427 24 6 156 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 13 68 38 1 1681 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 246 2418 84 1539 238 34 1681 718 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 17 17 68 68 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 346 718 86 17 vcu, unblocked vol 246 2418 84 1539 238 34 1681 718 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 74 1 98 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 92 134 38 257 138 662 386 892 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 8 34 34 38 1 1121 56 Volume Left 67 1 Volume Right 13 38 csh 17 36 17 17 17 892 17 17 Volume to Capacity..26.2.2.2.1.66.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 1 Control Delay (s). 21.7... 9.1.. Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (s). 21.7..1 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-62

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 43 466 29 38 994 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 116 71 773 48 63 165 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2234 2597 825 1724 2549 387 165 821 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1776 1776 773 773 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 458 821 951 1776 vcu, unblocked vol 2234 2597 825 1724 2549 387 165 821 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.5 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 45 1 87 1 92 cm capacity (veh/h) 76 113 316 212 118 566 397 817 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 188 516 274 32 63 11 55 Volume Left 116 63 Volume Right 71 16 32 csh 17 278 17 17 17 817 17 17 Volume to Capacity..67.3.16.2.8.65.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 6 Control Delay (s). 41.... 9.8.. Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s). 41...4 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3. Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-63

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.74 1..83.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1368 1567 1475 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% Adj. Flow (vph) 45 46 161 92 4 94 54 576 22 158 1399 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 13 31 12 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 31 195 54 576 1 158 1399 41 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 36.8 36.8 15.3 36.8 36.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 36.8 36.8 15.3 36.8 36.8 Actuated g/c Ratio.19.19.19.19.46.46.19.46.46 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 32 284 341 164 715 341 164 717 v/s Ratio Prot.3.16 c.9 c.4 v/s Ratio Perm.7.2 c.13.1.3 v/c Ratio.34.1.69.16.35.1.46.85.6 Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 26.4 29.8 26.7 13.6 11.5 28.4 18.9 11.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.8.2 6.8 1..1. 4.5 4.5. Delay (s) 28.5 26.5 36.6 27.7 13.8 11.5 32.9 23.4 11.8 Level of Service C C D C B B C C B Approach Delay (s) 27.3 36.6 14.9 23.9 Approach LOS C D B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 7.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-64

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 1243 36 3 648 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 51 1979 57 5 132 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 256 377 516 254 32 989 132 236 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 141 141 1979 1979 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 115 236 525 141 vcu, unblocked vol 256 377 516 254 32 989 132 236 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 56 1 79 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 149 87 54 62 97 245 669 274 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 78 989 989 57 5 688 344 Volume Left 27 5 Volume Right 51 57 csh 17 177 17 17 17 274 17 17 Volume to Capacity..44.58.58.3.2.4.2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 1 Control Delay (s). 51.1... 18.4.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 51.1..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-65

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 5 64 1221 48 21 64 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 69 8 15 25 79 34 151 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2232 324 525 2599 3125 13 151 284 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 112 112 25 25 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1112 284 594 112 vcu, unblocked vol 2232 324 525 2599 3125 13 151 284 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 5. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 73 57 1 87 cm capacity (veh/h) 56 56 497 6 3 244 658 27 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 182 1337 695 53 34 71 35 Volume Left 69 34 Volume Right 15 26 53 csh 17 99 17 17 17 27 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.84.79.41.3.13.41.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 375 11 Control Delay (s). 488.1... 2.3.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 488.1..6 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 26.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 7.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-66

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 112 25 15 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.92 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 1567 1718 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Flt Permitted.48 1..86.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 893 1567 149 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 61 53 61 47 161 129 181 4 169 867 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 43 64 11 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 143 1 25 129 181 29 169 867 21 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.1 41.1 41.1 15.1 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.1 41.1 41.1 15.1 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/c Ratio.19.19.19.18.49.49.18.49.49 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 165 29 276 319 1738 758 319 1738 76 v/s Ratio Prot.7 c.51 c.1.24 v/s Ratio Perm c.16.1.14.2.1 v/c Ratio.87.3.74.4 1.4.4.53.5.3 Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 28. 32.2 3.3 21.3 11. 31.1 14.4 11. Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 34.8. 1.2 3.8 31.6. 6.2.2. Delay (s) 67.9 28. 42.5 34.1 52.9 11.1 37.3 14.6 11. Level of Service E C D C D B D B B Approach Delay (s) 57.1 42.5 5.8 18. Approach LOS E D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-67

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 72 17 3 552 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 1 1182 28 5 96 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1512 2127 453 1645 299 591 96 121 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 916 916 1182 1182 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 596 121 463 916 vcu, unblocked vol 1512 2127 453 1645 299 591 96 121 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 88 1 98 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 247 21 554 189 28 45 746 572 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 33 591 591 28 5 64 32 Volume Left 23 5 Volume Right 1 28 csh 17 27 17 17 17 572 17 17 Volume to Capacity..12.35.35.2.1.36.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 Control Delay (s). 22.6... 11.3.. Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay (s). 22.6..1 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-68

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 37 697 31 2 551 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 42 6 1121 5 32 886 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 157 2121 443 1628 271 56 886 1171 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 95 95 1121 1121 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 62 1171 57 95 vcu, unblocked vol 157 2121 443 1628 271 56 886 1171 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7. 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.4 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 8 1 87 1 95 cm capacity (veh/h) 214 188 562 24 213 459 772 598 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 11 747 39 33 32 591 295 Volume Left 42 32 Volume Right 6 17 33 csh 17 33 17 17 17 598 17 17 Volume to Capacity..33.44.23.2.5.35.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 4 Control Delay (s). 22.8... 11.4.. Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay (s). 22.8..4 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-69

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 7/6/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.72 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1329 1567 1567 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% Adj. Flow (vph) 23 13 61 5 18 138 85 142 48 124 793 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 51 9 27 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 1 116 85 142 21 124 793 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 15.5 25.7 25.7 15.5 25.7 25.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 15.5 25.7 25.7 15.5 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/c Ratio.16.16.16.24.41.41.24.41.41 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 25 25 433 1437 627 433 1437 628 v/s Ratio Prot.5 c.29 c.7.22 v/s Ratio Perm.3.1 c.7.1.1 v/c Ratio.17.4.46.2.73.3.29.55.2 Uniform Delay, d1 23. 22.5 24.1 19. 15.8 11.3 19.4 14.4 11.3 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.4.1 1.4 1. 1.8. 1.7.5. Delay (s) 23.4 22.6 25.5 2. 17.7 11.3 21.1 14.9 11.3 Level of Service C C C B B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 22.9 25.5 17.6 15.5 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-7

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 APPENDIX C: SYNCHRO REPORTS - FUTURE App. M-71

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Flt Permitted.72 1..82.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1328 1567 1467 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 49 51 178 12 44 14 6 639 25 175 1552 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 143 3 13 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 35 22 6 639 12 175 1552 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.7 16.7 16.7 15.1 4. 4. 15.1 4. 4. Effective Green, g (s) 16.7 16.7 16.7 15.1 4. 4. 15.1 4. 4. Actuated g/c Ratio.2.2.2.18.48.48.18.48.48 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 265 312 292 319 1689 737 319 1689 738 v/s Ratio Prot.3.18 c.1 c.44 v/s Ratio Perm.8.2 c.15.1.3 v/c Ratio.38.11.75.19.38.2.55.92.7 Uniform Delay, d1 29. 27.5 31.6 29.1 14. 11.5 31.2 2.4 11.8 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.9.2 1.4 1.3.1. 6.6 8.4. Delay (s) 3. 27.6 42. 3.5 14.1 11.5 37.9 28.8 11.9 Level of Service C C D C B B D C B Approach Delay (s) 28.5 42. 15.4 29. Approach LOS C D B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.8 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-72

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 427 24 6 156 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 14 754 42 11 1864 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2269 2682 932 177 2639 377 1864 796 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1885 1885 754 754 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 384 796 953 1885 vcu, unblocked vol 2269 2682 932 177 2639 377 1864 796 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 67 1 98 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 7 19 268 224 112 627 328 835 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 88 377 377 42 11 1243 621 Volume Left 74 11 Volume Right 14 42 csh 17 267 17 17 17 835 17 17 Volume to Capacity..33.22.22.2.1.73.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 1 Control Delay (s). 25.9... 9.4.. Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s). 25.9..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-73

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 43 466 29 38 994 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 129 79 858 53 7 1829 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2477 288 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1969 1969 858 858 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 58 911 155 1969 vcu, unblocked vol 2477 288 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.5 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 29 1 85 1 91 cm capacity (veh/h) 56 89 275 181 94 53 338 756 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 28 429 429 53 7 122 61 Volume Left 129 7 Volume Right 79 53 csh 17 241 17 17 17 756 17 17 Volume to Capacity..86.25.25.3.9.72.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 175 8 Control Delay (s). 71.... 1.2.. Lane LOS A F B Approach Delay (s). 71...4 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-74

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 112 25 15 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.92 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 1567 1719 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Flt Permitted.48 1..83.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 878 1567 1434 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 91 68 59 68 52 178 143 1998 45 187 961 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 47 63 11 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 12 235 143 1998 34 187 961 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.3 17.3 17.3 15. 41.1 41.1 15. 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s) 17.3 17.3 17.3 15. 41.1 41.1 15. 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/c Ratio.2.2.2.18.48.48.18.48.48 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 317 29 311 173 743 311 173 745 v/s Ratio Prot.8 c.56 c.11.27 v/s Ratio Perm c.18.1.16.2.1 v/c Ratio.89.4.81.46 1.17.5.6.56.3 Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 27.4 32.5 31.6 22.2 11.7 32.4 15.8 11.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 38.6. 15.6 4.8 84.6. 8.3.4. Delay (s) 71.8 27.4 48.1 36.4 16.7 11.8 4.8 16.2 11.7 Level of Service E C D D F B D B B Approach Delay (s) 59.8 48.1 1.1 19.9 Approach LOS E D F B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 69.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-75

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 1243 36 3 648 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 56 2194 64 5 1144 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 228 3412 572 2777 3349 197 1144 2258 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1155 1155 2194 2194 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1125 2258 583 1155 vcu, unblocked vol 228 3412 572 2777 3349 197 1144 2258 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 33 1 73 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 118 66 463 45 76 28 67 224 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 86 197 197 64 5 763 381 Volume Left 3 5 Volume Right 56 64 csh 17 129 17 17 17 224 17 17 Volume to Capacity..67.65.65.4.2.45.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 2 Control Delay (s). 82.4... 21.5.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 82.4..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-76

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 5 64 1221 48 21 64 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 9 117 2224 87 38 1165 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1242 1242 2224 2224 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1233 2311 659 1242 vcu, unblocked vol 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 5. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 57 44 1 83 cm capacity (veh/h) 1 32 456 44 21 27 595 22 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 22 1112 1112 87 38 777 388 Volume Left 76 38 Volume Right 117 87 csh 17 74 17 17 17 22 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 2.74.65.65.5.17.46.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 496 15 Control Delay (s). 96.2... 24.8.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 96.2..8 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 49.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-77

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.68 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1254 1567 1565 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 26 15 68 55 2 153 94 1156 53 138 88 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 57 9 26 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 11 138 94 1156 27 138 88 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 11.3 11.3 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 29.4 29.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 11.3 11.3 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 29.4 29.4 Actuated g/c Ratio.17.17.17.23.43.43.23.43.43 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 28 26 259 42 1526 666 42 1526 667 v/s Ratio Prot.5 c.33 c.8.25 v/s Ratio Perm.3.1 c.9.2.1 v/c Ratio.2.4.53.23.76.4.34.58.3 Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 23.9 26. 21.5 16.4 11.2 22.1 14.7 11.2 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.5.1 2.1 1.4 2.2. 2.3.5. Delay (s) 25. 24. 28.1 22.9 18.6 11.3 24.4 15.2 11.2 Level of Service C C C C B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 24.4 28.1 18.6 16.3 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.6 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-78

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 72 17 3 552 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 11 1311 31 5 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1677 2358 53 1825 2327 656 15 1342 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 116 116 1311 1311 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 661 1342 514 116 vcu, unblocked vol 1677 2358 53 1825 2327 656 15 1342 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 84 1 97 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 214 173 514 158 18 48 685 59 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 36 656 656 31 5 67 335 Volume Left 25 5 Volume Right 11 31 csh 17 225 17 17 17 59 17 17 Volume to Capacity..16.39.39.2.1.39.2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 1 Control Delay (s). 26.8... 12.1.. Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s). 26.8..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-79

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 37 697 31 2 551 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 66 1243 55 36 983 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1742 2352 491 186 2297 622 983 1298 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 154 154 1243 1243 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 688 1298 563 154 vcu, unblocked vol 1742 2352 491 186 2297 622 983 1298 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7. 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.4 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 73 1 84 1 93 cm capacity (veh/h) 181 158 523 172 184 418 711 535 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 112 622 622 55 36 655 328 Volume Left 46 36 Volume Right 66 55 csh 17 263 17 17 17 535 17 17 Volume to Capacity..43.37.37.3.7.39.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 5 Control Delay (s). 28.5... 12.2.. Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s). 28.5..4 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-8

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 697 14 99 1567 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Flt Permitted.72 1..82.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1324 1567 1467 177 3539 1543 177 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 1% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 49 51 178 12 44 14 6 711 25 175 1599 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 143 3 13 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 35 22 6 711 12 175 1599 49 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.8 16.8 16.8 15. 41.1 41.1 15. 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.8 16.8 16.8 15. 41.1 41.1 15. 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/c Ratio.2.2.2.18.48.48.18.48.48 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 31 29 313 1713 747 313 1713 749 v/s Ratio Prot.3.2 c.1 c.45 v/s Ratio Perm.8.2 c.15.1.3 v/c Ratio.38.11.76.19.42.2.56.93.7 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 27.9 32.1 29.8 14.1 11.4 31.9 2.6 11.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.9.2 1.7 1.4.2. 7. 9.8. Delay (s) 3.5 28.1 42.9 31.1 14.3 11.4 39. 3.5 11.7 Level of Service C C D C B B D C B Approach Delay (s) 29. 42.9 15.5 3.5 Approach LOS C D B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-81

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 81 24 6 1873 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.98.92.98.92.98.98.98.98.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 14 827 42 11 1911 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2353 281 956 183 2759 413 1911 869 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1932 1932 827 827 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 42 869 977 1932 vcu, unblocked vol 2353 281 956 183 2759 413 1911 869 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 65 1 98 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 65 13 259 21 13 594 37 784 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 88 413 413 42 11 956 956 Volume Left 74 11 Volume Right 14 42 csh 17 25 17 17 17 784 17 17 Volume to Capacity..35.24.24.2.1.56.56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 1 Control Delay (s). 28.1... 9.7.. Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s). 28.1..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-82

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 71 131 7 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 139 129 79 27 858 53 7 1829 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2555 2958 939 215 2929 429 1878 911 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1994 1994 911 911 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 561 964 1194 218 vcu, unblocked vol 2555 2958 939 215 2929 429 1878 911 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.5 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 47 1 85 92 91 cm capacity (veh/h) 54 85 265 57 64 53 324 756 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 215 28 27 429 429 53 7 122 659 Volume Left 76 129 27 7 Volume Right 139 79 53 49 csh 112 87 324 17 17 17 756 17 17 Volume to Capacity 1.92 2.39.8.25.25.3.9.72.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 437 48 7 8 Control Delay (s) 51.9 738.2 17.1... 1.2.. Lane LOS F F C B Approach Delay (s) 51.9 738.2.5.4 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 79.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-83

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 221 25 15 17 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.92 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 1567 1719 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Flt Permitted.43 1..75.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 793 1567 13 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 1% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 91 68 59 68 52 178 143 284 45 187 138 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 48 49 1 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 11 249 143 284 35 187 138 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21. 21. 21. 16. 62. 62. 15. 61. 61. Effective Green, g (s) 21. 21. 21. 16. 62. 62. 15. 61. 61. Actuated g/c Ratio.19.19.19.15.56.56.14.55.55 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 151 299 248 257 1995 868 241 1963 857 v/s Ratio Prot.8 c.59 c.11.29 v/s Ratio Perm c.2.1.19.2.2 v/c Ratio 1.5.4 1.1.56 1.4.4.78.53.3 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 36.3 44.5 43.7 24. 1.7 45.9 15.4 11.1 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 88..1 58.7 8.4 32.9. 21.3.3. Delay (s) 132.5 36.3 13.2 52.1 56.9 1.7 67.2 15.7 11.1 Level of Service F D F D E B E B B Approach Delay (s) 16.5 13.2 55.7 23.1 Approach LOS F F E C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 11. Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-84

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 2234 36 3 1196 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 56 228 64 5 122 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2399 3574 61 29 3511 114 122 2343 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1231 1231 228 228 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1168 2343 621 1231 vcu, unblocked vol 2399 3574 61 29 3511 114 122 2343 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 24 1 71 1 97 cm capacity (veh/h) 17 59 437 39 68 195 567 27 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 86 114 114 64 5 814 47 Volume Left 3 5 Volume Right 56 64 csh 17 114 17 17 17 27 17 17 Volume to Capacity..76.67.67.4.3.48.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 2 Control Delay (s). 98.9... 22.8.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 98.9..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-85

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 84 45 42 5 64 14 1221 48 21 64 75 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 47 76 9 117 147 2224 87 38 1165 79 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 289 3887 622 3225 3839 1112 1244 2311 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1281 1281 2518 2518 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1528 266 77 1321 vcu, unblocked vol 289 3887 622 3225 3839 1112 1244 2311 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 5. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 89 44 73 83 cm capacity (veh/h) 2 429 21 27 555 22 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 136 22 147 1112 1112 87 38 777 467 Volume Left 88 76 147 38 Volume Right 47 117 87 79 csh 5 555 17 17 17 22 17 17 Volume to Capacity Err 37.89.27.65.65.5.17.46.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 27 15 Control Delay (s) Err Err 13.8... 24.8.. Lane LOS F F B C Approach Delay (s) Err Err.8.7 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-86

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 1166 29 75 917 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.66 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1225 1567 1564 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 1% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 26 15 68 55 2 153 94 124 53 138 976 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 57 91 23 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 11 137 94 124 3 138 976 19 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 15.5 31.7 31.7 15.5 31.7 31.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 15.5 31.7 31.7 15.5 31.7 31.7 Actuated g/c Ratio.16.16.16.22.45.45.22.45.45 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 253 253 389 1589 693 389 1589 695 v/s Ratio Prot.5 c.35 c.8.28 v/s Ratio Perm.3.1 c.9.2.1 v/c Ratio.21.4.54.24.78.4.35.61.3 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 25. 27.2 22.7 16.5 1.9 23.3 14.8 1.8 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.5.1 2.4 1.5 2.6. 2.5.7. Delay (s) 26.2 25.1 29.6 24.2 19.1 11. 25.8 15.5 1.9 Level of Service C C C C B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 25.5 29.6 19.1 16.6 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 7.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-87

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 1326 17 3 145 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 11 1396 31 5 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1814 2538 55 1957 257 698 11 1427 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1111 1111 1396 1396 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 73 1427 561 1111 vcu, unblocked vol 1814 2538 55 1957 257 698 11 1427 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 82 1 97 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 189 155 479 14 162 383 63 473 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 36 698 698 31 5 733 367 Volume Left 25 5 Volume Right 11 31 csh 17 2 17 17 17 473 17 17 Volume to Capacity..18.41.41.2.1.43.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 1 Control Delay (s). 29.9... 12.7.. Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s). 29.9..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-88

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 8 8 26 37 9 697 31 2 551 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 82 46 66 93 1243 55 36 983 93 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1974 2584 538 274 2576 622 175 1298 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 11 11 1429 1429 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 873 1484 645 1147 vcu, unblocked vol 1974 2584 538 274 2576 622 175 1298 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7. 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.4 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 4 1 83 57 1 84 86 93 cm capacity (veh/h) 138 11 488 18 117 418 656 535 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 165 112 93 622 622 55 36 655 42 Volume Left 82 46 93 36 Volume Right 82 66 55 93 csh 216 192 656 17 17 17 535 17 17 Volume to Capacity.77.59.14.37.37.3.7.39.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 133 8 12 5 Control Delay (s) 61.3 47.4 11.4... 12.2.. Lane LOS F E B B Approach Delay (s) 61.3 47.4.8.4 Approach LOS F E Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-89

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.7 1..81.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1292 1567 1453 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 58 6 28 12 52 122 7 746 29 24 1812 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 91 34 17 3 Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 117 26 7 746 12 24 1812 55 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 4. 29.4 29.4 15.1 4.5 4.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 4. 29.4 29.4 15.1 4.5 4.5 Actuated g/c Ratio.22.22.22.6.41.41.21.56.56 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 28 339 314 98 1443 63 371 1988 87 v/s Ratio Prot.4.21 c.12 c.51 v/s Ratio Perm.9.7 c.18.1.4 v/c Ratio.42.35.83.71.52.2.55.91.6 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 23.9 27. 33.5 16. 12.7 25.5 14.2 7.2 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 1..6 16.1 35.9.3. 5.8 6.8. Delay (s) 25.4 24.5 43.1 69.4 16.3 12.8 31.2 21. 7.2 Level of Service C C D E B B C C A Approach Delay (s) 24.8 43.1 2.6 21.4 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 427 24 6 156 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 16 88 49 12 2177 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 265 3131 188 1993 382 44 2177 93 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 221 221 88 88 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 448 93 1113 221 vcu, unblocked vol 265 3131 188 1993 382 44 2177 93 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 51 1 97 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 44 76 211 178 78 57 248 744 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 13 44 44 49 12 1451 726 Volume Left 87 12 Volume Right 16 49 csh 17 212 17 17 17 744 17 17 Volume to Capacity..49.26.26.3.2.85.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 1 Control Delay (s). 38.... 9.9.. Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s). 38...1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 7.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-91

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 43 466 29 38 994 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 92 11 62 82 2136 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2892 3363 168 2233 331 51 2136 164 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 2299 2299 11 11 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 593 164 1231 2299 vcu, unblocked vol 2892 3363 168 2233 331 51 2136 164 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.5 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 1 8 1 88 cm capacity (veh/h) 33 59 217 137 62 473 257 663 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 15 92 51 51 62 82 1424 712 Volume Left 15 82 Volume Right 92 62 csh 17 137 17 473 17 17 17 663 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.1..2.29.29.4.12.84.42 Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 18 1 Control Delay (s). 168.6. 14.4... 11.2.. Lane LOS A F A B B Approach Delay (s). 19.9..4 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 7.% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-92

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 112 25 15 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.92 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 1567 1718 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Flt Permitted.38 1..64.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 698 1567 112 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 79 69 79 6 28 167 2332 52 219 1122 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 56 49 1 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 13 298 167 2332 42 219 1122 33 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21. 21. 21. 16. 62. 62. 15. 61. 61. Effective Green, g (s) 21. 21. 21. 16. 62. 62. 15. 61. 61. Actuated g/c Ratio.19.19.19.15.56.56.14.55.55 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 299 214 257 1995 868 241 1963 857 v/s Ratio Prot.9 c.66 c.12.32 v/s Ratio Perm.26.1 c.27.3.2 v/c Ratio 1.39.4 1.39.65 1.17.5.91.57.4 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 36.3 44.5 44.4 24. 1.8 46.8 16. 11.2 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 215.3.1 22. 12.1 81.8. 38.4.4. Delay (s) 259.8 36.4 246.5 56.4 15.8 1.8 85.2 16.4 11.2 Level of Service F D F E F B F B B Approach Delay (s) 199.1 246.5 1.6 27. Approach LOS F F F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 94.7 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 11. Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 11.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-93

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 1243 36 3 648 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 66 2562 74 6 1336 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2662 3984 668 3242 391 1281 1336 2636 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1348 1348 2562 2562 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1314 2636 68 1348 vcu, unblocked vol 2662 3984 668 3242 391 1281 1336 2636 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 1 58 1 96 cm capacity (veh/h) 74 4 41 26 49 156 512 158 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 11 1281 1281 74 6 89 445 Volume Left 35 6 Volume Right 66 74 csh 17 69 17 17 17 158 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.47.75.75.4.4.52.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 213 3 Control Delay (s). 378.1... 28.7.. Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s). 378.1..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-94

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 5 64 1221 48 21 64 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 89 11 136 2596 12 45 1361 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 289 4148 68 3366 446 1298 1361 2698 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 145 145 2596 2596 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 144 2698 77 145 vcu, unblocked vol 289 4148 68 3366 446 1298 1361 2698 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 5. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 6 12 1 71 cm capacity (veh/h) 2 393 25 11 155 51 155 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 89 11 136 1298 1298 12 45 97 454 Volume Left 89 45 Volume Right 136 12 csh 17 25 11 155 17 17 17 155 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 3.54.94.88.76.76.6.29.53.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 49 151 28 Control Delay (s). Err 679.1 1.4... 37.5.. Lane LOS A F F F E Approach Delay (s). 3871.9. 1.2 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 211. Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-95

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.6 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 199 1567 1557 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 3 17 8 64 24 178 11 135 62 161 127 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 67 13 29 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 13 163 11 135 33 161 127 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 3.3 3.3 15.2 36.4 36.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 3.3 3.3 15.2 36.4 36.4 Actuated g/c Ratio.17.17.17.13.44.44.22.53.53 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 182 259 258 234 1556 679 39 187 818 v/s Ratio Prot.6 c.38 c.9 c.29 v/s Ratio Perm.4.1 c.1.2.2 v/c Ratio.26.5.63.47.87.5.41.55.3 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 24.2 26.8 27.7 17.5 11.1 23. 1.8 7.8 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.8.1 5. 6.6 5.4. 3.2.3. Delay (s) 25.8 24.3 31.8 34.3 22.9 11.1 26.2 11.1 7.8 Level of Service C C C C C B C B A Approach Delay (s) 24.8 31.8 23.2 13. Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 2. HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16. Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-96

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 72 17 3 552 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 13 1531 36 6 1174 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1186 1186 1531 1531 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 772 1567 6 1186 vcu, unblocked vol 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 74 1 96 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 168 133 453 116 141 346 591 417 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 43 765 765 36 6 782 391 Volume Left 3 6 Volume Right 13 36 csh 17 165 17 17 17 417 17 17 Volume to Capacity..26.45.45.2.2.46.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 1 Control Delay (s). 37.4... 13.8.. Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s). 37.4..1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 5.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-97

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 37 697 31 2 551 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 77 1451 65 42 1147 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 234 2747 574 219 2682 726 1147 1516 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1231 1231 1451 1451 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 83 1516 657 1231 vcu, unblocked vol 234 2747 574 219 2682 726 1147 1516 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7. 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.4 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 58 1 78 1 91 cm capacity (veh/h) 133 114 462 129 144 356 616 442 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 54 77 726 726 65 42 765 382 Volume Left 54 42 Volume Right 77 65 csh 17 129 17 356 17 17 17 442 17 17 Volume to Capacity..42..22.43.43.4.9.45.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 46 2 8 Control Delay (s). 51.9. 17.9... 14... Lane LOS A F A C B Approach Delay (s). 31.9..5 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 5.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-98

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 82 14 99 1822 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.7 1..81.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 129 1567 1453 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 1% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 58 6 28 12 52 122 7 818 29 24 1859 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 89 34 17 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 119 26 7 818 12 24 1859 56 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 15.7 15.7 4. 29.9 29.9 15.1 41. 41. Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 15.7 15.7 4. 29.9 29.9 15.1 41. 41. Actuated g/c Ratio.22.22.22.6.41.41.21.56.56 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 338 314 97 1456 635 368 1996 873 v/s Ratio Prot.4.23 c.12 c.53 v/s Ratio Perm.9.8 c.18.1.4 v/c Ratio.42.35.83.72.56.2.55.93.6 Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 24.2 27.2 33.8 16.4 12.7 25.8 14.6 7.2 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 1..6 16.1 37.1.5. 5.9 8.5. Delay (s) 25.6 24.8 43.3 7.9 16.9 12.7 31.7 23.1 7.2 Level of Service C C D E B B C C A Approach Delay (s) 25.1 43.3 2.9 23.3 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-99

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 71 131 7 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.91.95 1. 1..85 1. 1. Flt Protected.98.97.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1631 185 355 1615 185 3495 Flt Permitted.82.63.8 1. 1..25 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 142 16 156 355 1615 473 3495 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 76 139 15 92 27 11 62 82 2136 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 8 3 21 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 212 27 11 41 82 2183 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 19% % 3% % % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.1 17.1 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 Effective Green, g (s) 17.1 17.1 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 Actuated g/c Ratio.23.23.66.66.66.66.66 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 245 13 2315 166 312 238 v/s Ratio Prot.29 c.62 v/s Ratio Perm.15 c.2.17.3.17 v/c Ratio.64.87.26.43.4.26.95 Uniform Delay, d1 25.6 27.3 5.2 6. 4.4 5.2 11.4 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 25.7 6.1.6.1 2. 9.7 Delay (s) 29.7 53. 11.3 6.6 4.4 7.2 21.1 Level of Service C D B A A A C Approach Delay (s) 29.7 53. 6.6 2.6 Approach LOS C D A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 934 24 6 2179 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.98.92.98.92.98.98.98.98.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 16 953 49 12 2223 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2733 3251 1112 29 321 477 2223 13 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 2248 2248 953 953 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 485 13 1136 2248 vcu, unblocked vol 2733 3251 1112 29 321 477 2223 13 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 48 1 97 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 41 71 23 167 72 54 231 699 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 13 477 477 49 12 1112 1112 Volume Left 87 12 Volume Right 16 49 csh 17 199 17 17 17 699 17 17 Volume to Capacity..52.28.28.3.2.65.65 Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 1 Control Delay (s). 41.9... 1.2.. Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s). 41.9..1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-11

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 2347 25 15 1164 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 167 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Flt Permitted.72 1. 1..66 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1324 1844 1567 1256 1891 167 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 1% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 79 69 79 6 28 167 242 52 219 12 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 61 169 8 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 79 8 79 6 39 167 242 44 219 12 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 2. 77. 77. 15. 72. 72. Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 2. 77. 77. 15. 72. 72. Actuated g/c Ratio.11.11.11.11.11.11.17.66.66.13.61.61 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 29 178 142 214 182 32 2323 111 226 2172 949 v/s Ratio Prot.4.3.9 c.68 c.12.34 v/s Ratio Perm c.8..6.2.3.2 v/c Ratio.71.38.4.56.28.21.55 1.4.4.97.55.4 Uniform Delay, d1 5.1 48.2 46.3 49.2 47.6 47.2 44.6 2.1 7.1 5.9 13.2 9. Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 1.1.1 4.7.7.6 7.1 3.6. 52.4.3. Delay (s) 64.2 49.3 46.4 53.9 48.3 47.8 51.7 5.8 7.1 13.3 13.5 9. Level of Service E D D D D D D D A F B A Approach Delay (s) 54.8 49.3 5. 26.7 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 117.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-12

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 84 45 42 5 64 14 1221 48 21 64 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.95.92 1. 1..85 1..99 Flt Protected.97.98.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1643 177 3539 1583 185 3482 Flt Permitted.59.84.14 1. 1..8 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 153 141 26 3539 1583 144 3482 Peak-hour factor, PHF.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 88 47 89 11 136 147 2596 12 45 1361 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 26 4 24 5 Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 232 147 2596 78 45 1435 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % 1% % 2% 2% 2% % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 15.1 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 15.1 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 Actuated g/c Ratio.2.2.7.7.7.7.7 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 278 181 2463 112 1 2424 v/s Ratio Prot c.73.41 v/s Ratio Perm.1 c.17.56.5.31 v/c Ratio.52.83.81 1.5.7.45.59 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 29.2 8.1 11.6 3.7 5.1 6. Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 18.9 31.4 34.4.1 13.9 1.1 Delay (s) 29.4 48.2 39.4 45.9 3.8 19.1 7. Level of Service C D D D A B A Approach Delay (s) 29.4 48.2 44.1 7.4 Approach LOS C D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76. Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-13

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 2595 36 3 1384 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 66 2648 74 6 1412 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2782 4147 76 3366 473 1324 1412 2722 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1425 1425 2648 2648 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1357 2722 718 1425 vcu, unblocked vol 2782 4147 76 3366 473 1324 1412 2722 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 1 55 1 96 cm capacity (veh/h) 65 35 378 23 44 146 479 146 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 11 1324 1324 74 6 941 471 Volume Left 35 6 Volume Right 66 74 csh 17 59 17 17 17 146 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.71.78.78.4.4.55.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 233 3 Control Delay (s). 494.3... 3.7.. Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s). 494.3..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 11.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-14

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 1349 29 75 156 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.59 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 183 1567 1557 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 1% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 3 17 8 64 24 178 11 1435 62 161 1123 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 67 13 26 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 13 163 11 1435 36 161 1123 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 31.3 31.3 15.1 37.3 37.3 Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 31.3 31.3 15.1 37.3 37.3 Actuated g/c Ratio.16.16.16.13.45.45.22.53.53 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 256 254 231 1587 692 383 1891 827 v/s Ratio Prot.6 c.41 c.9 c.32 v/s Ratio Perm.4.1 c.1.2.2 v/c Ratio.27.5.64.48.9.5.42.59.3 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 24.6 27.3 28.1 17.9 1.9 23.6 11.1 7.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.8.1 5.5 6.9 7.6. 3.4.5. Delay (s) 26.3 24.7 32.8 35. 25.5 1.9 26.9 11.6 7.7 Level of Service C C C D C B C B A Approach Delay (s) 25.3 32.8 25.6 13.3 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16. Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-15

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 8 8 26 37 9 697 31 2 551 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.93.92 1. 1..85 1..99 Flt Protected.98.98.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1695 1646 185 3574 1615 1787 3534 Flt Permitted.76.79.2 1. 1..15 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1324 1323 374 3574 1615 278 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 82 54 77 93 1451 65 42 1147 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 54 44 17 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 87 93 1451 48 42 1234 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 7% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 1.6 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 1.6 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 Actuated g/c Ratio.15.15.73.73.73.73.73 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2 2 275 2626 1186 24 2596 v/s Ratio Prot c.41.35 v/s Ratio Perm c.8.7.25.3.15 v/c Ratio.55.43.34.55.4.21.48 Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 27. 3.3 4.2 2.5 2.9 3.8 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 1.5 3.3.8.1 2.3.6 Delay (s) 3.6 28.5 6.6 5. 2.6 5.2 4.4 Level of Service C C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 3.6 28.5 5. 4.4 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 7.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-16

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 1535 17 3 125 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 13 1616 36 6 1268 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 295 2933 634 2263 2897 88 1268 1652 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1281 1281 1616 1616 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 814 1652 647 1281 vcu, unblocked vol 295 2933 634 2263 2897 88 1268 1652 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 71 1 96 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 148 12 422 12 127 324 544 387 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 43 88 88 36 6 846 423 Volume Left 3 6 Volume Right 13 36 csh 17 146 17 17 17 387 17 17 Volume to Capacity..29.48.48.2.2.5.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 1 Control Delay (s). 42.8... 14.5.. Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s). 42.8..1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-17

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.75 1..82.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1378 1567 1467 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 49 51 178 12 44 14 6 639 25 175 1552 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 35 16 3 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 78 215 6 639 9 175 1552 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 13.7 4.1 24.4 24.4 15.5 35.8 35.8 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 13.7 4.1 24.4 24.4 15.5 35.8 35.8 Actuated g/c Ratio.21.21.21.6.37.37.24.55.55 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 327 36 111 1316 575 418 1931 845 v/s Ratio Prot.3.18 c.1 c.44 v/s Ratio Perm.7.5 c.15.1.3 v/c Ratio.35.24.7.54.49.2.42.8.5 Uniform Delay, d1 22.1 21.6 24.1 29.8 15.8 13. 21.2 12.1 7. Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.7.4 7.1 17.6.3. 3.1 2.5. Delay (s) 22.9 22. 31.2 47.4 16.1 13. 24.3 14.6 7. Level of Service C C C D B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 22.3 31.2 18.6 15.2 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18. HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-18

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 427 24 6 156 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 14 754 42 11 1864 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2269 2682 932 177 2639 377 1864 796 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1885 1885 754 754 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 384 796 953 1885 vcu, unblocked vol 2269 2682 932 177 2639 377 1864 796 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 67 1 98 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 7 19 268 224 112 627 328 835 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 88 377 377 42 11 1243 621 Volume Left 74 11 Volume Right 14 42 csh 17 267 17 17 17 835 17 17 Volume to Capacity..33.22.22.2.1.73.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 1 Control Delay (s). 25.9... 9.4.. Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s). 25.9..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-19

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 43 466 29 38 994 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 129 79 858 53 7 1829 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2477 288 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1969 1969 858 858 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 58 911 155 1969 vcu, unblocked vol 2477 288 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.5 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 29 1 85 1 91 cm capacity (veh/h) 56 89 275 181 94 53 338 756 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 129 79 429 429 53 7 122 61 Volume Left 129 7 Volume Right 79 53 csh 17 181 17 53 17 17 17 756 17 17 Volume to Capacity..71..15.25.25.3.9.72.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 13 8 Control Delay (s). 63.. 13.... 1.2.. Lane LOS A F A B B Approach Delay (s). 44...4 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 6.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-11

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 112 25 15 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.92 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 1567 1719 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Flt Permitted.43 1..75.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 793 1567 13 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 91 68 59 68 52 178 143 1998 45 187 961 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 48 49 1 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 11 249 143 1998 35 187 961 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21. 21. 21. 16. 62. 62. 15. 61. 61. Effective Green, g (s) 21. 21. 21. 16. 62. 62. 15. 61. 61. Actuated g/c Ratio.19.19.19.15.56.56.14.55.55 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 151 299 248 257 1995 868 241 1963 857 v/s Ratio Prot.8 c.56 c.11.27 v/s Ratio Perm c.2.1.19.2.2 v/c Ratio 1.5.4 1.1.56 1..4.78.49.3 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 36.3 44.5 43.7 24. 1.7 45.9 15. 11.1 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 88..1 58.7 8.4 2.5. 21.3.2. Delay (s) 132.5 36.3 13.2 52.1 44.5 1.7 67.2 15.2 11.1 Level of Service F D F D D B E B B Approach Delay (s) 16.5 13.2 44.3 23.2 Approach LOS F F D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 11. Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-111

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 1243 36 3 648 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 56 2194 64 5 1144 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 228 3412 572 2777 3349 197 1144 2258 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1155 1155 2194 2194 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1125 2258 583 1155 vcu, unblocked vol 228 3412 572 2777 3349 197 1144 2258 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 33 1 73 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 118 66 463 45 76 28 67 224 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 86 197 197 64 5 763 381 Volume Left 3 5 Volume Right 56 64 csh 17 129 17 17 17 224 17 17 Volume to Capacity..67.65.65.4.2.45.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 2 Control Delay (s). 82.4... 21.5.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 82.4..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-112

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 5 64 1221 48 21 64 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 9 117 2224 87 38 1165 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1242 1242 2224 2224 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1233 2311 659 1242 vcu, unblocked vol 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 5. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 57 44 1 83 cm capacity (veh/h) 1 32 456 44 21 27 595 22 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 76 9 117 1112 1112 87 38 777 388 Volume Left 76 38 Volume Right 117 87 csh 17 44 21 27 17 17 17 22 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.74.43.56.65.65.5.17.46.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 31 76 15 Control Delay (s). 558.7 268.1 42.9... 24.8.. Lane LOS A F F E C Approach Delay (s). 248.2..8 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 13.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-113

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.66 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1211 1567 1561 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 26 15 68 55 2 153 94 1156 53 138 88 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 57 14 3 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 11 124 94 1156 23 138 88 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 9.2 26.8 26.8 15.3 32.9 32.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 9.2 26.8 26.8 15.3 32.9 32.9 Actuated g/c Ratio.16.16.16.14.42.42.24.51.51 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 191 247 246 254 1477 645 422 1814 793 v/s Ratio Prot.5 c.33 c.8 c.25 v/s Ratio Perm.3.1 c.8.2.1 v/c Ratio.21.4.5.37.78.4.33.49.3 Uniform Delay, d1 23.6 23. 24.7 24.9 16.2 11.1 2.2 1.2 7.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.6.1 1.6 4.1 2.8. 2.1.2. Delay (s) 24.2 23. 26.4 29. 19. 11.1 22.3 1.4 7.8 Level of Service C C C C B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 23.4 26.4 19.4 11.8 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16. Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-114

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 72 17 3 552 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 11 1311 31 5 15 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1677 2358 53 1825 2327 656 15 1342 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 116 116 1311 1311 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 661 1342 514 116 vcu, unblocked vol 1677 2358 53 1825 2327 656 15 1342 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 84 1 97 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 214 173 514 158 18 48 685 59 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 36 656 656 31 5 67 335 Volume Left 25 5 Volume Right 11 31 csh 17 225 17 17 17 59 17 17 Volume to Capacity..16.39.39.2.1.39.2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 1 Control Delay (s). 26.8... 12.1.. Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s). 26.8..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-115

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 37 697 31 2 551 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 66 1243 55 36 983 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1742 2352 491 186 2297 622 983 1298 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 154 154 1243 1243 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 688 1298 563 154 vcu, unblocked vol 1742 2352 491 186 2297 622 983 1298 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7. 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.4 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 73 1 84 1 93 cm capacity (veh/h) 181 158 523 172 184 418 711 535 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 46 66 622 622 55 36 655 328 Volume Left 46 36 Volume Right 66 55 csh 17 172 17 418 17 17 17 535 17 17 Volume to Capacity..27..16.37.37.3.7.39.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 14 5 Control Delay (s). 33.4. 15.2... 12.2.. Lane LOS A D A C B Approach Delay (s). 22.7..4 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-116

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 697 14 99 1567 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.94 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.98 1..98.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1567 1749 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.75 1..82.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1374 1567 1467 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 1% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 49 51 178 12 44 14 6 711 25 175 1599 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 98 35 16 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 8 215 6 711 9 175 1599 43 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 13.8 13.8 4.1 25.1 25.1 15.5 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.8 13.8 13.8 4.1 25.1 25.1 15.5 36.5 36.5 Actuated g/c Ratio.21.21.21.6.38.38.23.55.55 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 286 326 35 19 1338 584 413 1945 851 v/s Ratio Prot.3.2 c.1 c.45 v/s Ratio Perm.7.5 c.15.1.3 v/c Ratio.35.24.71.55.53.2.42.82.5 Uniform Delay, d1 22.5 22. 24.4 3.3 16.1 12.9 21.7 12.3 6.9 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.7.4 7.2 18.5.4. 3.2 2.9. Delay (s) 23.2 22.3 31.6 48.8 16.5 12.9 24.8 15.2 6.9 Level of Service C C C D B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 22.7 31.6 18.8 15.8 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-117

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 71 131 7 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.91.95 1. 1..85 1. 1. Flt Protected.98.97.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1631 185 355 1615 185 3494 Flt Permitted.83.62.8 1. 1..3 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 149 144 154 355 1615 578 3494 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 173% 1% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 76 139 129 79 27 858 53 7 1829 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 17 31 17 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 177 27 858 36 7 1876 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 19% % 3% % % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 Actuated g/c Ratio.21.21.68.68.68.68.68 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3 222 14 2374 194 391 2366 v/s Ratio Prot.24 c.54 v/s Ratio Perm.14 c.17.18.2.12 v/c Ratio.66.8.26.36.3.18.79 Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 27.2 4.6 5. 3.9 4.3 8.2 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 17.9 6..4.1 1. 2.8 Delay (s) 31.4 45.1 1.6 5.5 3.9 5.3 11. Level of Service C D B A A A B Approach Delay (s) 31.4 45.1 5.5 1.8 Approach LOS C D A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.8 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-118

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 81 24 6 1873 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.98.92.98.92.98.98.98.98.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 14 827 42 11 1911 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2353 281 956 183 2759 413 1911 869 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1932 1932 827 827 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 42 869 977 1932 vcu, unblocked vol 2353 281 956 183 2759 413 1911 869 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 65 1 98 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 65 13 259 21 13 594 37 784 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 88 413 413 42 11 956 956 Volume Left 74 11 Volume Right 14 42 csh 17 25 17 17 17 784 17 17 Volume to Capacity..35.24.24.2.1.56.56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 1 Control Delay (s). 28.1... 9.7.. Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s). 28.1..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-119

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 221 25 15 17 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.92 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 1567 1719 177 3539 1539 177 3539 1545 Flt Permitted.43 1..73.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 787 1567 1274 177 3539 1539 177 3539 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 1% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 91 68 59 68 52 178 143 284 45 187 138 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 48 44 9 18 Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 11 254 143 284 36 187 138 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23. 23. 23. 17. 7. 7. 15. 68. 68. Effective Green, g (s) 23. 23. 23. 17. 7. 7. 15. 68. 68. Actuated g/c Ratio.19.19.19.14.58.58.12.57.57 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 151 3 244 251 264 898 221 25 876 v/s Ratio Prot.8 c.59 c.11.29 v/s Ratio Perm c.2.1.2.2.2 v/c Ratio 1.5.4 1.4.57 1.1.4.85.52.3 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 39.5 48.5 48.1 25. 1.7 51.4 15.9 11.5 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 88..1 68.2 9.1 22.2. 31..2. Delay (s) 136.5 39.5 116.7 57.2 47.2 1.7 82.3 16.2 11.5 Level of Service F D F E D B F B B Approach Delay (s) 11.3 116.7 47.1 25.7 Approach LOS F F D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 12. Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-12

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 84 45 42 5 64 14 1221 48 21 64 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.95.92 1. 1..85 1..99 Flt Protected.97.98.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1646 177 3539 1583 185 3478 Flt Permitted.61.84.19 1. 1..7 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 178 141 352 3539 1583 141 3478 Peak-hour factor, PHF.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 173% 1% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 88 47 76 9 117 147 2224 87 38 1165 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 27 1 23 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 192 147 2224 64 38 1238 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % 1% % 2% 2% 2% % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 13.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 13.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 Actuated g/c Ratio.18.18.71.71.71.71.71 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 259 25 2517 1126 1 2473 v/s Ratio Prot c.63.36 v/s Ratio Perm.1 c.14.42.4.27 v/c Ratio.55.74.59.88.6.38.5 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 29.3 5.4 8.5 3.3 4.3 4.9 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 1.9 9.8 5..1 1.6.7 Delay (s) 31.1 4.2 15.2 13.5 3.4 15. 5.6 Level of Service C D B B A B A Approach Delay (s) 31.1 4.2 13.2 5.9 Approach LOS C D B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.8 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-121

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 2234 36 3 1196 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 56 228 64 5 122 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2399 3574 61 29 3511 114 122 2343 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1231 1231 228 228 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1168 2343 621 1231 vcu, unblocked vol 2399 3574 61 29 3511 114 122 2343 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 24 1 71 1 97 cm capacity (veh/h) 17 59 437 39 68 195 567 27 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 86 114 114 64 5 814 47 Volume Left 3 5 Volume Right 56 64 csh 17 114 17 17 17 27 17 17 Volume to Capacity..76.67.67.4.3.48.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 2 Control Delay (s). 98.9... 22.8.. Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s). 98.9..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-122

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 1166 29 75 917 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1..85.91 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.97 1..99.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1567 1699 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.64 1..91.95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1186 1567 156 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 1% 173% Adj. Flow (vph) 26 15 68 55 2 153 94 124 53 138 976 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 58 15 27 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 1 123 94 124 26 138 976 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 9.2 28.2 28.2 15.3 34.3 34.3 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 1.1 1.1 9.2 28.2 28.2 15.3 34.3 34.3 Actuated g/c Ratio.15.15.15.14.43.43.23.52.52 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 241 24 248 1521 664 413 185 89 v/s Ratio Prot.5 c.35 c.8 c.28 v/s Ratio Perm.3.1 c.8.2.1 v/c Ratio.22.4.51.38.82.4.33.53.3 Uniform Delay, d1 24.3 23.6 25.5 25.6 16.4 1.8 2.9 1.3 7.6 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.6.1 1.8 4.4 3.5. 2.2.3. Delay (s) 24.9 23.7 27.3 3. 19.9 1.9 23.1 1.6 7.6 Level of Service C C C C B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 24.2 27.3 2.2 12. Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16. Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-123

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 8 8 26 37 9 697 31 2 551 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.93.92 1. 1..85 1..99 Flt Protected.98.98.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1695 1646 185 3574 1615 1787 3528 Flt Permitted.79.8.24 1. 1..2 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1375 1343 461 3574 1615 369 3528 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 173% 1% 173% 173% 173% 1% 173% 173% 173% 173% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 82 46 66 93 1243 55 36 983 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 54 56 14 7 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 56 93 1243 41 36 169 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 7% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 1.5 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 1.5 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 Actuated g/c Ratio.15.15.74.74.74.74.74 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 21 34 2632 1189 272 2598 v/s Ratio Prot c.35.3 v/s Ratio Perm c.8.4.2.3.1 v/c Ratio.53.28.27.47.3.13.41 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 26.5 3.1 3.7 2.5 2.7 3.5 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 2.6.8 2..6.1 1..5 Delay (s) 3.2 27.2 5. 4.3 2.6 3.7 4. Level of Service C C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 3.2 27.2 4.3 4. Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 7.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 218 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-124

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 1326 17 3 145 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 11 1396 31 5 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1814 2538 55 1957 257 698 11 1427 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1111 1111 1396 1396 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 73 1427 561 1111 vcu, unblocked vol 1814 2538 55 1957 257 698 11 1427 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 82 1 97 1 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 189 155 479 14 162 383 63 473 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 36 698 698 31 5 733 367 Volume Left 25 5 Volume Right 11 31 csh 17 2 17 17 17 473 17 17 Volume to Capacity..18.41.41.2.1.43.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 1 Control Delay (s). 29.9... 12.7.. Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s). 29.9..1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-125

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..97 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1827 167 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.55 1. 1..75 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 112 1844 1567 1427 167 177 3539 1544 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 58 6 28 12 52 122 7 746 29 24 1812 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 94 99 17 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 6 114 172 23 7 746 12 24 1812 56 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 4.1 28.3 28.3 16.2 4.4 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 4.1 28.3 28.3 16.2 4.4 4.4 Actuated g/c Ratio.18.18.18.18.18.6.41.41.23.58.58 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 341 289 264 297 15 1445 631 414 263 92 v/s Ratio Prot.3.4.21 c.12 c.51 v/s Ratio Perm.6.7 c.12.1.1.4 v/c Ratio.31.18.4.65.8.67.52.2.49.88.6 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 23.8 24.8 26.2 23.4 31.9 15.4 12.2 23. 12.3 6.3 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.9.2.9 5.7.1 28.8.3. 4.1 4.6. Delay (s) 25.4 24.1 25.7 31.8 23.5 6.7 15.7 12.2 27.1 17. 6.3 Level of Service C C C C C E B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 25.4 28.4 19.3 17.5 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-126

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 7 43 466 29 38 994 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.95 1..85 1. 1. Flt Protected.97 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1631 355 1615 185 355 Flt Permitted.81 1. 1..26 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1363 355 1615 488 355 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 15 92 11 62 82 2136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 11 43 82 2136 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 19% % 3% % % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 52. 52. 52. 52. Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 52. 52. 52. 52. Actuated g/c Ratio.19.7.7.7.7 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 265 2446 1127 341 2446 v/s Ratio Prot.29 c.61 v/s Ratio Perm c.16.3.17 v/c Ratio.8.41.4.24.87 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 4.8 3.5 4.1 8.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 15.8.1..4 3.8 Delay (s) 44.4 4.9 3.5 4.5 12.5 Level of Service D A A A B Approach Delay (s). 44.4 4.8 12.2 Approach LOS A D A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-127

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 427 24 6 156 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 16 88 49 12 2177 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 265 3131 188 1993 382 44 2177 93 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 221 221 88 88 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 448 93 1113 221 vcu, unblocked vol 265 3131 188 1993 382 44 2177 93 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 51 1 97 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 44 76 211 178 78 57 248 744 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 13 44 44 49 12 1451 726 Volume Left 87 12 Volume Right 16 49 csh 17 212 17 17 17 744 17 17 Volume to Capacity..49.26.26.3.2.85.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 1 Control Delay (s). 38.... 9.9.. Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s). 38...1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 7.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-128

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 112 25 15 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..97 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1838 167 177 3539 1539 177 3539 1545 Flt Permitted.47 1. 1..74 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 866 1844 1567 143 167 177 3539 1539 177 3539 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 79 69 79 6 28 167 2332 52 219 1122 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 167 9 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 79 9 139 41 167 2332 43 219 1122 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 2. 77. 77. 15. 72. 72. Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 2. 77. 77. 15. 72. 72. Actuated g/c Ratio.13.13.13.13.13.17.64.64.13.6.6 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 114 243 27 185 212 295 2275 989 222 2127 929 v/s Ratio Prot.4.9 c.66 c.12.32 v/s Ratio Perm c.12.1.1.3.3.2 v/c Ratio.93.33.4.75.19.57 1.3.4.99.53.4 Uniform Delay, d1 51.5 47.2 45.4 5.1 46.3 45.9 21.4 7.9 52.3 14. 9.8 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 61.7.8.1 15.7.5 7.7 25.6. 57..2. Delay (s) 113.2 47.9 45.5 65.8 46.8 53.6 47. 7.9 19.3 14.2 9.8 Level of Service F D D E D D D A F B A Approach Delay (s) 74.5 54.4 46.6 29. Approach LOS E D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-129

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 42 5 64 1221 48 21 64 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.92 1..85 1. 1. Flt Protected.98 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1643 3539 1583 185 355 Flt Permitted.88 1. 1..6 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1466 3539 1583 19 355 Peak-hour factor, PHF.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 89 11 136 2596 12 45 1361 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 229 2596 82 45 1361 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % 1% % 2% 2% 2% % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 Actuated g/c Ratio.17.74.74.74.74 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 249 2635 1179 81 261 v/s Ratio Prot c.73.39 v/s Ratio Perm c.16.5.41 v/c Ratio.92.99.7.56.52 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 11.5 3.2 5.2 5. Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 36.4 14.4.1 24.7.7 Delay (s) 74.6 25.8 3.3 29.9 5.7 Level of Service E C A C A Approach Delay (s). 74.6 25. 6.5 Approach LOS A E C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-13

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 1243 36 3 648 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 66 2562 74 6 1336 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2662 3984 668 3242 391 1281 1336 2636 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1348 1348 2562 2562 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1314 2636 68 1348 vcu, unblocked vol 2662 3984 668 3242 391 1281 1336 2636 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 1 58 1 96 cm capacity (veh/h) 74 4 41 26 49 156 512 158 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 11 1281 1281 74 6 89 445 Volume Left 35 6 Volume Right 66 74 csh 17 69 17 17 17 158 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.47.75.75.4.4.52.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 213 3 Control Delay (s). 378.1... 28.7.. Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s). 378.1..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-131

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..96 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1824 167 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.7 1. 1..77 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1291 1844 1567 1464 167 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 3 17 8 64 24 178 11 135 62 161 127 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 69 153 28 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 17 11 88 25 11 135 34 161 127 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 1.1 3.1 3.1 15.1 35.1 35.1 Effective Green, g (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 1.1 3.1 3.1 15.1 35.1 35.1 Actuated g/c Ratio.14.14.14.14.14.15.45.45.23.53.53 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 179 255 217 23 223 269 164 7 43 1871 818 v/s Ratio Prot.1.6 c.38 c.9.29 v/s Ratio Perm.2.1 c.6.2.2.2 v/c Ratio.17.7.5.43.11.41.84.5.4.55.3 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 24.9 24.8 26.2 25. 25.5 16. 1.1 21.8 1.4 7.5 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.4.1.1 1.5.2 4.6 4.2. 2.9.3. Delay (s) 25.7 25. 24.9 27.7 25.2 3. 2.2 1.2 24.7 1.7 7.5 Level of Service C C C C C C C B C B A Approach Delay (s) 25.1 26.1 2.5 12.4 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18. HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-132

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 26 37 697 31 2 551 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.92 1..85 1. 1. Flt Protected.98 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1646 3574 1615 1787 3574 Flt Permitted.87 1. 1..16 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1454 3574 1615 297 3574 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 54 77 1451 65 42 1147 RTOR Reduction (vph) 53 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 1451 51 42 1147 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 7% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 Actuated g/c Ratio.11.79.79.79.79 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 158 288 1269 233 288 v/s Ratio Prot c.41.32 v/s Ratio Perm c.5.3.14 v/c Ratio.5.52.4.18.41 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 2.9 1.8 2. 2.6 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 2.4.7.1 1.7.4 Delay (s) 34.2 3.6 1.9 3.7 3. Level of Service C A A A A Approach Delay (s). 34.2 3.5 3. Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-133

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 72 17 3 552 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 13 1531 36 6 1174 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1186 1186 1531 1531 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 772 1567 6 1186 vcu, unblocked vol 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 74 1 96 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 168 133 453 116 141 346 591 417 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 43 765 765 36 6 782 391 Volume Left 3 6 Volume Right 13 36 csh 17 165 17 17 17 417 17 17 Volume to Capacity..26.45.45.2.2.46.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 1 Control Delay (s). 37.4... 13.8.. Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s). 37.4..1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 5.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-134

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 29 11 58 25 59 34 82 14 99 1822 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 167 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.72 1. 1..72 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1333 1844 1567 1357 1891 167 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 1% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 58 6 28 12 52 122 7 818 29 24 1859 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 95 12 17 27 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 6 113 12 52 2 7 818 12 24 1859 58 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 4.1 28.6 28.6 16.2 4.7 4.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 4.1 28.6 28.6 16.2 4.7 4.7 Actuated g/c Ratio.16.16.16.16.16.16.6.42.42.24.6.6 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 31 256 222 39 263 17 1491 651 422 2121 928 v/s Ratio Prot.3.3.4.23 c.12 c.53 v/s Ratio Perm.4.7 c.9.1.1.4 v/c Ratio.27.2.44.54.17.8.65.55.2.48.88.6 Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 24.6 25.6 26.1 24.4 24.1 31.2 14.8 11.5 22.2 11.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.7.3 1.2 2.7.3.1 27.1.4. 3.9 4.4. Delay (s) 25.5 24.9 26.8 28.7 24.7 24.2 58.3 15.2 11.5 26.2 15.9 5.7 Level of Service C C C C C C E B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 26.2 26.1 18.4 16.5 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-135

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 71 131 7 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.91.95 1. 1..85 1. 1. Flt Protected.98.97.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1631 185 355 1615 185 3495 Flt Permitted.82.62.7 1. 1..25 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1397 135 139 355 1615 478 3495 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 76 139 15 92 27 11 62 82 2136 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 11 28 2 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 214 27 11 42 82 2183 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 19% % 3% % % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 17.6 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.6 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 Actuated g/c Ratio.22.22.68.68.68.68.68 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 36 227 95 2388 11 326 2381 v/s Ratio Prot.29 c.62 v/s Ratio Perm.15 c.21.19.3.17 v/c Ratio.67.94.28.42.4.25.92 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 3.8 5.1 5.7 4.2 4.9 1.9 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 43.6 7.4.5.1 1.8 7. Delay (s) 34.1 74.5 12.4 6.3 4.3 6.8 17.9 Level of Service C E B A A A B Approach Delay (s) 34.1 74.5 6.3 17.5 Approach LOS C E A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 8.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-136

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 42 8 934 24 6 2179 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.98.92.98.92.98.98.98.98.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 16 953 49 12 2223 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2733 3251 1112 29 321 477 2223 13 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 2248 2248 953 953 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 485 13 1136 2248 vcu, unblocked vol 2733 3251 1112 29 321 477 2223 13 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 48 1 97 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 41 71 23 167 72 54 231 699 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 13 477 477 49 12 1112 1112 Volume Left 87 12 Volume Right 16 49 csh 17 199 17 17 17 699 17 17 Volume to Capacity..52.28.28.3.2.65.65 Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 1 Control Delay (s). 41.9... 1.2.. Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s). 41.9..1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-137

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 38 33 38 29 1 8 2347 25 15 1164 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..97 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 167 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Flt Permitted.72 1. 1..66 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1324 1844 1567 1256 1891 167 177 3539 154 177 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 1% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 79 69 79 6 28 167 242 52 219 12 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 61 169 8 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 79 8 79 6 39 167 242 44 219 12 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 2. 77. 77. 15. 72. 72. Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 2. 77. 77. 15. 72. 72. Actuated g/c Ratio.11.11.11.11.11.11.17.66.66.13.61.61 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 29 178 142 214 182 32 2323 111 226 2172 949 v/s Ratio Prot.4.3.9 c.68 c.12.34 v/s Ratio Perm c.8..6.2.3.2 v/c Ratio.71.38.4.56.28.21.55 1.4.4.97.55.4 Uniform Delay, d1 5.1 48.2 46.3 49.2 47.6 47.2 44.6 2.1 7.1 5.9 13.2 9. Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 1.1.1 4.7.7.6 7.1 3.6. 52.4.3. Delay (s) 64.2 49.3 46.4 53.9 48.3 47.8 51.7 5.8 7.1 13.3 13.5 9. Level of Service E D D D D D D D A F B A Approach Delay (s) 54.8 49.3 5. 26.7 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 117.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12. Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-138

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 84 45 42 5 64 14 1221 48 21 64 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.95.92 1. 1..85 1..99 Flt Protected.97.98.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1643 177 3539 1583 185 3482 Flt Permitted.55.83.15 1. 1..6 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 976 1389 275 3539 1583 113 3482 Peak-hour factor, PHF.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 88 47 89 11 136 147 2596 12 45 1361 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 21 7 2 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 229 147 2596 82 45 1436 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % 1% % 2% 2% 2% % 3% % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16. 16. 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16. 16. 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 Actuated g/c Ratio.18.18.74.74.74.74.74 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 243 23 261 1167 83 2568 v/s Ratio Prot c.73.41 v/s Ratio Perm.12 c.17.54.5.4 v/c Ratio.66.94.72.99.7.54.56 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 37.3 6.8 11.8 3.3 5.2 5.4 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 42.2 2. 16.4.1 23.1.9 Delay (s) 44.5 79.5 26.8 28.2 3.4 28.3 6.2 Level of Service D E C C A C A Approach Delay (s) 44.5 79.5 27.3 6.9 Approach LOS D E C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24. HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-139

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 32 2595 36 3 1384 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 66 2648 74 6 1412 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 2782 4147 76 3366 473 1324 1412 2722 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1425 1425 2648 2648 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 1357 2722 718 1425 vcu, unblocked vol 2782 4147 76 3366 473 1324 1412 2722 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 1 55 1 96 cm capacity (veh/h) 65 35 378 23 44 146 479 146 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 11 1324 1324 74 6 941 471 Volume Left 35 6 Volume Right 66 74 csh 17 59 17 17 17 146 17 17 Volume to Capacity. 1.71.78.78.4.4.55.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 233 3 Control Delay (s). 494.3... 3.7.. Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s). 494.3..1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 11.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-14

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 8 37 3 11 83 51 1349 29 75 156 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Grade (%) 2% -3% % % Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. Frpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1..98 1. 1..98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Frt 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 1. 1..85 Flt Protected.95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 167 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Flt Permitted.74 1. 1..75 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 1. 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1368 1844 1567 1411 1891 167 177 3539 1545 177 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94.94 Growth Factor (vph) 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 1% 22% Adj. Flow (vph) 3 17 8 64 24 178 11 1435 62 161 1123 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 155 26 22 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 17 1 64 24 23 11 1435 36 161 1123 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 1. 31.2 31.2 15. 36.2 36.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 1. 31.2 31.2 15. 36.2 36.2 Actuated g/c Ratio.13.13.13.13.13.13.15.47.47.22.54.54 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 235 2 18 241 25 265 1655 723 398 1921 84 v/s Ratio Prot.1.1.6 c.41 c.9 c.32 v/s Ratio Perm.2.1 c.5.1.2.2 v/c Ratio.17.7.5.36.1.11.42.87.5.4.58.3 Uniform Delay, d1 26. 25.6 25.6 26.6 25.7 25.8 25.7 15.9 9.7 22. 1.2 7.1 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2.5.1.1 1.2.2.2 4.7 5.1. 3..5. Delay (s) 26.4 25.8 25.7 27.8 25.9 26. 3.4 21. 9.7 25.1 1.7 7.1 Level of Service C C C C C C C C A C B A Approach Delay (s) 25.9 26.4 21.2 12.3 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16. Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-141

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 8 8 26 37 9 697 31 2 551 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Total Lost time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Lane Util. Factor 1. 1. 1..95 1. 1..95 Frt.93.92 1. 1..85 1..99 Flt Protected.98.98.95 1. 1..95 1. Satd. Flow (prot) 1695 1646 185 3574 1615 1787 3534 Flt Permitted.76.79.2 1. 1..15 1. Satd. Flow (perm) 1315 132 374 3574 1615 279 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97.97 Growth Factor (vph) 1% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 1% 22% 22% 22% 22% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 82 54 77 93 1451 65 42 1147 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 53 5 17 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 81 93 1451 48 42 1234 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% % % 7% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 1.9 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 1.9 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/c Ratio.15.15.74.74.74.74.74 Clearance Time (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Vehicle Extension (s) 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 199 276 2641 1193 26 2611 v/s Ratio Prot c.41.35 v/s Ratio Perm c.8.6.25.3.15 v/c Ratio.56.41.34.55.4.2.47 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 27.8 3.3 4.2 2.5 2.9 3.8 Progression Factor 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 1.4 3.3.8.1 2.2.6 Delay (s) 32.2 29.2 6.6 5. 2.6 5.1 4.4 Level of Service C C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 32.2 29.2 5. 4.4 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8. Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 23 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 App. M-142

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 1/25/21 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 14 6 1535 17 3 125 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade % % % % Peak Hour Factor.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 13 1616 36 6 1268 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume 295 2933 634 2263 2897 88 1268 1652 vc1, stage 1 conf vol 1281 1281 1616 1616 vc2, stage 2 conf vol 814 1652 647 1281 vcu, unblocked vol 295 2933 634 2263 2897 88 1268 1652 tc, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tf (s) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 p queue free % 1 1 1 71 1 96 1 98 cm capacity (veh/h) 148 12 422 12 127 324 544 387 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 43 88 88 36 6 846 423 Volume Left 3 6 Volume Right 13 36 csh 17 146 17 17 17 387 17 17 Volume to Capacity..29.48.48.2.2.5.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 1 Control Delay (s). 42.8... 14.5.. Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s). 42.8..1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 23 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 App. M-143

Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 21 APPENDIX D: SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS App. M-144

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 2592 121 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-145

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 4 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 3 1 Lane & 1 Lane 2 1 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) * * *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 3255 73 Warrant Met NO *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-146

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Major Street Minor Street Name of Streets SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Y N Conditions One Lane (Y/N) N Y Warrant Met NO Traffic Volume (VPH) * 2576 73 *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-147

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Major Street Minor Street Name of Streets SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Y N Conditions One Lane (Y/N) N Y Warrant Met NO Traffic Volume (VPH) * 3276 29 *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-148

Cattle Creek Crossing 23 Background Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 326 141 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-149

Cattle Creek Crossing 23 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 4 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 3 1 Lane & 1 Lane 2 1 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) * * *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 381 85 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-15

Cattle Creek Crossing 23 Background Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Major Street Minor Street Name of Streets SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Y N Conditions One Lane (Y/N) N Y Warrant Met NO Traffic Volume (VPH) * 32 *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-151

Cattle Creek Crossing 23 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Major Street Minor Street Name of Streets SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Y N Conditions One Lane (Y/N) N Y Warrant Met NO Traffic Volume (VPH) * 3826 *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-152

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background plus project Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 2592 121 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-153

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 3359 84 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-154

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background plus project Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Major Street Minor Street Name of Streets SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Y Y Conditions One Lane (Y/N) N N Warrant Met NO Traffic Volume (VPH) * 2693 *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-155

Cattle Creek Crossing 218 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Major Street Minor Street Name of Streets SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Y Y Conditions One Lane (Y/N) N N Warrant Met NO Traffic Volume (VPH) * 3435 *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-156

Cattle Creek Crossing 23 Background plus project Computed by AT Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Period AM Peak Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 326 141 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-157

Cattle Creek Crossing 23 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 1/22/21 Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Minor Street High Volume Approach - VPH 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) *Note: 1 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. * * Name of Streets Two or More Lane Lane (Y/N) Conditions One Lane (Y/N) Traffic Volume (VPH) * Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Y N N Y 3899 129 Warrant Met YES *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. App. M-158