Resolution 18-22
To:
Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: April 5, 2022
Initiated By: Megan O’Callaghan, PE, Deputy City Manager/Finance and Development Officer
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Jean-Ellen Willis, PE, Deputy Director of Transportation and Mobility
J.M. Rayburn, Planner II
Re: Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot – Resolution 18-22 to Proceed with the Micro-
mobility Demonstration Pilot and to Permit the Operation of Low-speed Micro-mobility
Devices on Streets, Sidewalks and Shared-use Paths for a Duration and 12 Months
Background
The recommendations of the Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study, combined with
the interest of Bird to operate in Dublin, led staff to propose a Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot
at the November 2021 meeting of the Public Services Committee. Staff received favorable
feedback from the Committee and followed up in February 2022 with information regarding the
pilot boundaries, timeline, Bird e-scooters phasing, speed limits, parking management, and
sidewalk congestion mitigation. The memos shared with the Public Services Committee for the
November 2021 and February 2022 meetings are attached for your reference.
At the February 2022 meeting, the Public Services Committee was supportive of the proposed
timeline and components outlined for the demonstration pilot. Furthermore, the Committee was
supportive of proposed Bird and CoGo Bike Share fleet sizes, supplemental signs, use of glow
pavers and proposed sidewalk congestion mitigation measures and locations. The demonstration
pilot proposal is consistent with the discussions and feedback from the Public Services Committee.
Staff anticipates the launch of the Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot on May 1st in celebration of
Bike Month. Staff proposed the following timeline for the pilot:
Phase 1 (May 2022 to July 2022)
Implement communications plan
Demonstration pilot commences in May 2022 in recognition of National Bike Month
Pilot launched within defined Phase 1 boundaries, as shown in Figure 1 on page 2
Monitor and evaluate Phase 1 area for a minimum of 3 months
Phase 2 (August 2022 to May 2023)
Expand pilot boundaries to be citywide
Continue communications plan
Monitor and evaluate Phase 2 area for 9 months
Pilot Concludes (June 2023)
Conclude demonstration pilot
Report findings to the Public Services Committee and City Council and provide
recommendations for next steps
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot
April 5, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Launch of Bird and CoGo Bike Share Services in Dublin
Pending approval of the Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot by Council, Bird anticipates a launch in
Dublin by mid-May. CoGo Bike Share will debut later in the year to coincide with the completion of
the DCRC Mobility Hub. Staff anticipates CoGo to launch in Dublin in September with station
locations at the DCRC, the North Market Bridge Park, the library parking garage, and at the
intersection of Frantz Road and Metro Place North, as budgets allow. Figure 1 illustrates CoGo
station locations with green circles featuring a bicycle icon.
For specifics regarding designated parking areas for micro-mobility devices such as Bird e-scooters,
please refer to the February 16, 2022 Public Services Committee memo where this topic is
discussed in more detail.
Demonstration Pilot Cost Estimates – Signs and Materials
In order to implement the demonstration pilot as proposed, new signs and materials such as the
glow pavers will be installed. Funding is available in this year’s budget to cover these costs.
To enhance safety and amplify awareness of the existing cycle track in the Bridge Street District,
staff will install a collection of signs that will be strategically placed along the cycle track route
within the Bridge Park neighborhood. These signs may be attached on existing public
infrastructure, as shown in Figure 2 on page 3.
Staff will construct a 70-square-foot scooter parking area at the John Wright Parking Lot to be
identified with a paver product that has glow-in-the-dark components, as shown in Figures 3 and 4.
This location provides an opportunity to test glow-in-the-dark pavers for possible application in future
mobility projects. As an example, the sample shown below is from a manufacturer called Glow Path
Pavers, which claim a continuous glow of their pavers for six to eight hours after dark. The cost of
materials for 70 square feet of glow pavers is approximately $23 per square foot, or about $1,600.
Figure 1: Pilot Boundaries for Phase 1 (purple) and CoGo Stations (green)
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot
April 5, 2022
Page 3 of 3
Attachments
Staff has attached two previous memos to the Public Services Committee of Council from February
2022 and November 2021. Feedback from the Public Services Committee at the November 2021
meeting included requests of staff to provide additional information regarding the Demonstration
Pilot boundaries, timeline, Bird e-scooters phasing, speed limits, parking management, and
sidewalk congestion mitigation. These memos may be referenced for specific details regarding the
demonstration pilot proposal.
1. PSC Memo 2-16-2022
2. PSC Memo 11-10-2021 (with Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study)
Resolution 18-22
The launch of the Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot in May will align with Bike Month and reflects
Dublin’s commitment to expand mobility options by supporting micro-mobility operators.
Additionally, the pilot builds upon the five essential elements of a Bicycle Friendly Community
including encouragement, education, equity, evaluation and engineering. Staff is requesting
Council temporarily permit the operation of low-speed micro-mobility devices, such as Bird e-
scooters, beginning May 1, 2022. Approval of Resolution 18-22 would direct staff to proceed with
the Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot and would permit the operation of low-speed micro-mobility
devices on streets, sidewalks and shared-use paths for a duration of 12 months.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 18-22 to temporarily permit the operation of low-speed micro-
mobility devices on streets, sidewalks and shared-use paths for a duration of 12 months, beginning May
1, 2022.
Figure 2: Example of sign to
amplify awareness of
Downtown Dublin Cycle Track
Figure 3: Examples of
Glow Path Pavers
Figure 4: Glow Path Pavers
after dark
To:
Public Services Committee of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: November 5, 2021
Initiated By: Megan O’Callaghan, Deputy City Manager/Chief Finance and Development Officer
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Jean-Ellen Willis, PE, Deputy Director of Transportation and Mobility
J.M. Rayburn, Planner I
Re: Mobility Study Update – Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot, COTA Bus Shelter
Program, DCRC Mobility Hub, and Speed Management
Summary
This memo provides an update on four mobility initiatives including the micro-mobility
demonstration pilot, the COTA bus shelter program, the mobility hub at the Dublin Community
Recreation Center, and speed management.
Mobility Update
Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study
The Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study,
completed by American StructurePoint in early 2021,
evaluated the feasibility of options for micro-mobility
along this corridor. The full report is attached for
reference. For this study, micro-mobility or alternative
transportation vehicles are considered lightweight, single
passenger vehicles powered by electricity. The study
evaluated several options ranging from physical
improvements, such as widening the roadway, sidewalk, or
shared-use path to code revisions using the existing
infrastructure.
As part of this study, research was conducted with other
cities for benchmarking. The following considerations were
found in benchmark cities for micro-mobility:
Same guidelines as bicycles
Speeds are limited to 15 – 20 mph
Permitted in streets, in bike lanes, and along
shared use paths - generally not on sidewalks
Independent facilities for micro-mobility vehicles are not common
Study alternatives were developed, including a “no-build” option, to determine how each might fit
in the Frantz Road corridor and the impacts that would result from their implementation, as
summarized on the next page.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Figure 1: Map of Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane Study Area
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 2 of 9
Table 1: Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Alt. Comparison
Alternative Advantages Disadvantages
No-Build Alternative (No Additional Cost)
Micro-mobility vehicles use the existing
divided four-lane roadway or shared-use path
or sidewalk.
Maintains landscaped median.
No impact to right-of-way,
utilities, traffic.
No additional cost.
Micro-mobility vehicles mix with
other travel types in the
roadway, shared-use path, or
sidewalk.
Alternative 1 (Mid-Range Cost)
Add alternative transportation lanes along
both sides of roadway, by reducing the width
of the landscaped median.
No impact to right-of-way,
utilities.
Space dedicated to micro-
mobility.
Pedestrians have access to
both sides of roadway.
Significant project cost.
Reduces the landscaped
median, causing the loss of
large trees.
Micro-mobility vehicles
immediately adjacent to higher
speed travel lanes.
Alternative 2 (High Cost)
Add alternative transportation lanes along
both sides of roadway, by reducing the tree
lawn/relocating the sidewalks and paths.
Space dedicated to micro-
mobility.
Maintains landscaped median.
Pedestrians have access to
both sides of roadway.
Highest cost alternative.
Significant impacts to right-of-
way, drainage system, other
utilities, and tree
lawns/landscaping.
Micro-mobility vehicles
immediately adjacent to higher
speed travel lanes.
Alternative 3 (Mid to Low-Range Cost)
Widen or construct a 10-ft shared use path
on one side of the roadway to allow for
micro-mobility vehicles.
Micro-mobility vehicles
separated from vehicular
traffic.
Maintains landscaped median.
Project cost is not as high as
other alternatives.
Impacts to right-of-way and
utilities on one side of the
corridor.
Pedestrians only have access to
one side of the roadway.
Alternative 4 (Mid-Range Cost)
Widen or construct a 10-ft shared use path
on both sides of the roadway to allow for
micro-mobility vehicles.
Micro-mobility vehicles
separated from vehicular
traffic.
Maintains landscaped median.
Pedestrians have access to
both sides of roadway.
Significant project cost.
Impacts to right-of-way and
utilities on both sides of the
corridor.
Alternative 5 (Mid-Range Cost)
Add two-way alternative transportation lanes
along one side of roadway, by widening the
pavement to the inside.
No impact to right-of-way,
utilities.
Space dedicated to micro-
mobility.
Pedestrians have access to
both sides of roadway.
Significant project cost.
Reduces the landscaped
median, causing the loss of
large trees.
This alternative was not
advanced, due to safety
concerns with contra-flow
micro-mobility.
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 3 of 9
Alternative Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 6 (Mid to Low-Range Cost)
Add two-way alternative transportation lanes
along one side of roadway, by removing a
travel lane.
No impact to right-of-way,
utilities.
Space dedicated to micro-
mobility.
Maintains landscaped median.
Pedestrians have access to
both sides of roadway
Project cost is not as high as
other alternatives.
Removes a travel lane.
This alternative was not
advanced, due to safety
concerns from contra-flow
micro-mobility and insufficient
roadway capacity.
One factor that the study uncovered was the latent demand for micro-mobility transportation is
unknown, due to the relatively low number of these vehicles in use throughout the City or in this
corridor. Given the expenditures associated with any of the build options, and that the demand is
unknown, the study recommended the “no-build” alternative combined with a suspension of
certain code restrictions. For example, under the current Dublin Code, motorized micro-mobility
vehicles, such as electric scooters, are not permitted on shared-use paths, sidewalks or roadways.
The study also recommended that the City conduct a demonstration pilot to better understand the
preferred operations and balance between these newer vehicles and more traditional
transportation modes.
As the Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study was nearing completion, Bird
approached the City of Dublin in November 2020 with an interest in deploying a fleet of electric
scooters for rent. As with the Alternative Transportation Lane demonstration project, in order for
Bird to operate electric-powered scooters in the City, the same sections of Dublin Code would have
to be modified to allow micro-mobility vehicles to operate on our shared-use paths, sidewalks or
roadways.
Micro-Mobility Demonstration Project
Given the recommendations of the Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study combined
with the interest of Bird to operate in Dublin, staff proposes to merge the two into a single pilot
project to be conducted in the Frantz Road and Bridge Park area, as shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Proposed Pilot Boundaries
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 4 of 9
This proposed pilot project is consistent with previous discussions with the Public Services
Committee earlier this year when the topic of micro-mobility vehicles, and specifically Bird scooters
operating in Dublin, were contemplated and received favorable feedback.
The pilot requires that certain code sections are suspended for a period of time, thereby
temporarily allowing human- and electric-powered micro-mobility vehicles to operate on shared-
use paths, sidewalks, and travel lanes for purposes of a demonstration pilot project. Staff proposes
to permit the operation of the demonstration project for a one-year period to cover all weather
conditions and seasons. Upon the conclusion of the 12-month period, staff will report back the
results of the pilot, provide relevant data, and provide a recommendation to the Public Services
Committee and City Council regarding next steps.
Demonstration Pilot - Proposed Code Section for Suspension
Staff has identified one section of the Dublin Code to suspend as part of the demonstration pilot.
§ 72.061 Driving upon sidewalks, bike paths, street lawns or other areas
o No person shall drive or operate any vehicle, other than a bicycle, upon a sidewalk
or sidewalk area, or bike path, except upon a permanent or duly authorized
temporary driveway.
Demonstration Pilot - Operators
Staff researched micro-mobility programs in other U.S. cities and identified the Cities of Santa
Monica, California, Gainesville, Florida, and Kansas City, Missouri as the best case studies to use to
structure Dublin’s demonstration pilot. Building from lessons learned from these cities, staff is
proposing the following structure for the pilot.
Staff proposes three (3) micro-mobility operators to be included in the demonstration pilot. These
include Bird (e-scooters), CoGo Bike Share, and TRIP e-Bike Share.
Staff met with Bird on October 19, 2021 to discuss
potential operations in Dublin as part of the micro-
mobility demonstration pilot. Tools that Bird uses
to encourage safe riding and parking include geo-
fencing, Community Safety Zones, and in-app
incentives. Geo-fences are used two ways by Bird:
the first renders e-scooters inoperable outside the
boundaries of an invisible geo-fence, and the
second is the Community Safety Zones program,
which creates a special geo-fence zone around
high-pedestrian areas like schools, hospitals, and
could be applied to the Dublin Link and landing
plaza areas, that automatically forces Bird
scooters to slow down to help keep all users safe.
Bird scooters passing through a Community Safety
Zone will automatically reduce their maximum
allowable speed to 8 mph and trigger an in-app
message explaining the reason for the deceleration. The areas are also clearly visible on the in-app
Bird service map, allowing riders to plan their routes accordingly. At the May 3, 2021 Public
Services Committee, Bird recommended parking locations can be tailored to Dublin’s policies for
micro-mobility parking. Acceptable parking locations can be highlighted in the Bird app with a
photo for the rider to reference in addition to in-app incentives such as a credit. Finally, there is no
Figure 3: Photo of e-scooters parked in
Downtown Columbus
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 5 of 9
cost to launch Bird in Dublin as the e-scooters are dockless and do not require public investment to
operate—only changes to the Dublin Code.
CoGo Bike Share is a public-private bike sharing system serving the Cities of Columbus, Upper
Arlington, Bexley, and Grandview Heights, and continues to gain in popularity. While traditional
CoGo bikes are parked in the docking stations, CoGo can identify public bike racks for users of e-
bikes and use incentives such as a $1 credit to encourage acceptable parking practices. Dublin
staff plans to complete site designs and construction of five (5) CoGo stations in Dublin in 2022 as
reflected in the 2022-2026 Capital Improvements Program. Several of the Phase 1 stations
identified are located within the demonstration pilot project area, such as: the Columbus
Metropolitan Library Dublin Branch, North Market Bridge Park, Dale Drive COTA Park and Ride,
Dublin Link East Plaza, and Frantz & Metro Place North.
TRIP e-Bike Share is a private bike share company based in Columbus, Ohio. TRIP’s fleet of
dockless e-bikes feature fat tires, dual-shock suspension, a 52-volt battery with an 80-100 mile
range. The company is planning to launch the e-bike share in Columbus in early 2022. Dublin staff
has been engaged in ongoing conversations with TRIP regarding a launch in Dublin, which is
targeted for later in 2022 or early 2023.
Demonstration Pilot - Timeline
Staff is proposing a timeline divided into three (3) phases.
Phase 1 (November 2021 to April 2022)
Review demonstration project with the Public Services Committee
Finalize goals, scope, timeline and evaluation
Create an engagement and communications plan to educate the public on boundaries of
the pilot, expectations of drivers and micro-mobility users, and enforcement practices
Phase 2 (May 2022 to May 2023)
Staff provides City Council demonstration project parameters and details and requests that
Council suspend Code at the meeting scheduled for April 11, 2022
Demonstration project commences in May, 2022 in recognition of National Bike Month
Monitor and evaluate for 12 months
Implement communications plan
Phase 3 (June 2023)
Conclude demonstration pilot
Report findings to the Public Services Committee and City Council and provide next steps
Demonstration Pilot - Targeted Vehicles
Human-powered or electric-powered micro-mobility vehicles are the focus of the pilot. These
could include, but are not limited to:
Bicycles
Electric Bicycles (E-bikes)
Handbikes/Handcycles
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 6 of 9
Kick scooters
Electric scooters (E-scooters)
Segways
Skateboards
Wheelchairs & personal mobility
devices
Golf carts but not on shared-use
paths
Details of Demonstration Pilot – Education and Marketing Campaign
As part of the demonstration pilot, Transportation & Mobility staff will work with Communications &
Public Information to develop a robust and coordinated education and marketing campaign. The
campaign may include new signs, sidewalk decals, static and digital message boards, city press
releases, community emails, social media notifications, and in-app messaging provided by each
operator. The goal of the communications and marketing plan is to provide awareness and
parameters of Dublin’s micro-mobility demonstration pilot, including basic parking and riding rules.
In addition to City efforts, operators will be required to engage the community and deliver safe
riding education campaigns as part of the demonstration pilot. Engagement activities during the
pilot could include tabling at events, helmet distribution, and ongoing education during supply
rebalancing efforts.
Details of Demonstration Pilot – Data Collection
Staff will collect data from operators including the total number of rides, ridership peaks during the
12-month pilot, average trip time, average trip length, and the percentage of rides in Historic
Dublin, Bridge Street District, and the Frantz Road Corridor. Staff will audit crash reports, publish
a survey and use trail counters to gather additional data during the pilot.
Details of Demonstration Pilot – Costs
The demonstration pilot can be implemented at no additional cost to the City. As mentioned
previously, Bird may launch in Dublin without funding from the City. The costs associated with
CoGo bike share stations, Code modifications, and trail counting are already included in capital and
operating budgets for 2022.
Details of Demonstration Pilot – Indicators of Success
Staff believes an expansion in micro-mobility options in the Dublin community can provide a
potential first mile/last mile solution as well as advance the City Council’s goal of being the most
Connected Community. Indicators of success include the following.
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 7 of 9
Feedback from the public indicating support
Sufficient data to provide recommendations to City Council
Potential Next Steps Following a Successful Demonstration Pilot
Dublin Staff has identified additional sections of the Dublin Code that may need revised to better
accommodate micro-mobility options but are not required to be suspended for the demonstration
pilot. These include the following.
§ 72.003 Rules governing overtaking and passing of vehicles
o Consider adding micro-mobility vehicles to allow operation in travel lanes
§ 75.01 Code application to bicycles
o A) The provisions of this Traffic Code that are applicable to bicycles and electric
bicycles apply whenever a bicycle or electric bicycle is operated upon any street or
upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
§ 75.02 Rules for bicycles, motorcycles and snowmobiles
o Consider adding micro-mobility language
§ 75.04 Riding bicycles and motorcycles abreast
o Consider addressing micro-mobility vehicles
§ 75.06 Riding on roadway
o Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon the roadway shall operate
such vehicle within three feet of the right edge of the roadway.
o Consider updating language and incorporating micro-mobility vehicles
§ 75.07 Reckless operation
o Consider addressing micro-mobility vehicles
§ 75.08 Parking of bicycle or motorized bicycle
o No person shall park a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon a sidewalk in such a
manner so as to unduly interfere with pedestrian traffic or upon a roadway so as to
unduly interfere with vehicular traffic.
o Consider addressing micro-mobility vehicles
§ 76.01 Prohibited standing or parking places
o No person shall stand or park a vehicle…Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an
intersection; or within one foot of another parked vehicle.
o Consider addressing micro-mobility vehicles
§ 76.13 Parking restrictions in residential districts
o No person who is the owner, agent, operator, or other person in charge of any
commercial or recreational vehicle as defined herein may permit such vehicle to
remain parked, standing, or abandoned upon any street in a residential district.
§ 96.27 Vehicle regulations
o No person shall leave a vehicle in a park during the hours when a park is closed
without having first obtained a permit from the City Manager or designee.
o Consider addressing micro-mobility vehicles in parks.
Discussion Topics
Is the Public Services Committee supportive of the micro-mobility demonstration pilot and what
might success look like?
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 8 of 9
COTA Bus Shelter Program
There are 45 COTA bus stops serving Dublin. A
significant number of these lack base amenities,
which likely dissuades potential riders from using
transit and micro-transit options such as the
Dublin Connector shuttle. The COTA bus shelter
program would provide amenities such as shelters
and street furniture, technology enabled and
additional smart mobility features in order to
increase access and use of transit. The first three
(3) locations identified for improvements include
565 Metro Place, Frantz Road and W. Bridge
Street (northbound), and Frantz Road and W.
Bridge Street (southbound). All three (3) of these
bus stops are serviced by Lines 33 and 73 (Rush
Hour). Line 33 connects the Bridge Street District,
MetroCenter, Carriage Place Shopping Center, Sawmill Plaza, and Graceland Shopping Center. The
73 is the rush hour express service from the Dale Drive Park & Ride to COTA’s Downtown
Columbus Transit Terminal. Of the 25 stops along this bus route, 18 are located within Dublin.
The bus stop locations at 565 Metro Place, Frantz Road and W. Bridge Street (northbound), and
Frantz Road and W. Bridge Street (southbound) were selected for a variety of reasons. Each of
these bus stops feature a green circular bus sign topper promoting the Dublin Connector. The
Dublin Connector sign toppers were installed in 2019 at the COTA bus stops that connect with the
shuttle with the highest workforce ridership at that time. Furthermore, outside of the Dale Drive
Park & Ride, these bus stop locations are in the top 4 locations of highest average weekday
ridership in Dublin. While Dublin Connector activity has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic,
there remains a strong correlation between the COTA and Dublin Connector services at these bus
stops and supports the selection of these locations.
On May 3, 2021, Dublin staff met virtually with
COTA staff to discuss a partnership for funding
bus shelter improvements. COTA is supportive of
a partnership and prefers a standard bus shelter
design with the opportunity to incorporate
placemaking components. COTA acknowledges that
some transit stop locations present opportunities
for public art, landscaping, or customized designs
for amenities like shelters or benches. Where
feasible, COTA is interested in partnering with
communities to make special improvements to
transit stops. However, Dublin will have to provide
funding for the stations where ridership numbers
do not currently meet COTA’s criteria for enhanced
stops. COTA prefers to own and maintain their stops, including bus shelters, regardless if they are
a standard or enhanced design. If an improved stop is relocated, Dublin may be eligible for
reimbursement. Further discussion with COTA is needed to finalize the terms of an agreement
regarding bus shelter improvements.
Funding for COTA bus shelters is included in the 2022-2026 Capital Improvements Program to
upgrade the three locations mentioned previously. Based on conversations with COTA, Dublin
Figure 5: Example of Enhanced Shelter:
“Garden Stop” Lexington Kentucky
565 Metro Pl
Frantz Rd &
W Bridge Street
Figure 4: Map of COTA bus stops identified for
improvements
Memo re. Mobility Study Update
November 5, 2021
Page 9 of 9
enhanced transit stops are anticipated to cost approximately $55,000 each and are expected to
include items such as an enhanced shelter, benches, trash cans, lighting, wi-fi, charging stations,
wayfinding and smart signs.
Discussion Topic
What are the important design components relative to the bus shelters?
DCRC Mobility Hub Concept
Staff presented mobility hub concepts to the Public Services Committee on May 3, 2021 and June
15, 2021 and received favorable feedback from the Committee. AARP Ohio notified Dublin staff on
August 16, 2021 that the City was selected for a state-level grant at the requested amount of
$20,000. The grant will help fund the building of a mobility hub near the Senior Lounge at the
Dublin Community Recreation Center (DCRC). Dublin City Council voted at its meeting on October
11, 2021, to accept the grant funding and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement
with AARP Ohio. Accordingly, staff issued a Request for Quote on October 12, 2021 in order to hire
an engineering consultant to provide a detailed design of the DCRC mobility hub in the form of
construction drawings. The final design of the proposed DCRC mobility hub will be completed by
March 2022 and construction is anticipated in late spring/summer 2022.
Next Steps for the DCRC Mobility Hub
Staff will select a consultant, develop design concepts, and identify costs associated with various
elements of the mobility hub. Staff anticipates reporting back to the Public Services Committee for
discussion and feedback in early 2022.
Speed Management
Staff will present on the topic of speed management at the November 9, 2021 meeting of the
Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC). Topics of discussion will include the history and
a summary of the City’s Traffic Calming Program with an emphasis on the roles and relationship
between Engineering and the Police Department. Staff will also introduce the concept of Vision
Zero and provide a general timeline of this topic moving forward.
Discussion Questions
1. Is the Public Services Committee supportive of the micro-mobility demonstration pilot and
what does success look like?
2. What are the important design components relative to the bus shelters?
3. Other considerations.
Attachment
Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane Study
Feasibility Study
Frantz Road Alternative Transportation Lane
City of Dublin
Division of Engineering
6555 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
February 8, 2021
201902529 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overall Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Cost Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix ............................................................................................ 3
2.0 Introduction/Background ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Study Goals ........................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Community Benchmarking ................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Alternative Transportation Vehicle Types and History ......................................................................... 5
2.5 Alternative Transportation Lane Types ................................................................................................ 6
2.6 Study Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Traffic Analysis........................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Traffic Volume Projections .................................................................................................................. 12
4.2 Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.3 Intersection Control Considerations ................................................................................................... 14
5.0 Roadway Assessment ................................................................................................................ 16
6.0 Safety Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 17
7.0 Drainage Assessment ................................................................................................................. 20
8.0 Right-of-Way Assessment .......................................................................................................... 21
9.0 Utility Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 23
10.0 Additional Assessments ............................................................................................................. 25
10.1 Aesthetic/Corridor Impacts ................................................................................................................ 25
10.2 Ease of Construction/Maintenance of Traffic ..................................................................................... 26
10.3 Cost Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 27
11.0 Alternatives Comparison ............................................................................................................ 27
11.1 Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix .......................................................................................... 27
12.0 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 28
12.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 28
12.2 Identification of Preliminary Preferred Alternative ............................................................................ 30
201902529 Page ii
Tables
Table 1.1 - Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost ...................................................................................... 2
Table 1.2 – Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix ............................................................................. 3
Table 4.1 – Traffic Capacity Impacts Summary ....................................................................................... 14
Table 6.1 – Safety Summary .................................................................................................................. 19
Table 6.2 – Integration with other Transportation Modes Summary ...................................................... 20
Table 7.1 – Drainage Impact Summary................................................................................................... 21
Table 8.1 – Right-of-Way Impact Summary ............................................................................................ 23
Table 9.1 – Utility Impact Summary ....................................................................................................... 25
Table 10.1 – Aesthetic/Corridor Impact Summary .................................................................................. 26
Table 10.2 – Ease of Construction/Maintenance of Traffic Summary ...................................................... 26
Table 10.3 - Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost ................................................................................... 27
Table 11.1 – Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix .......................................................................... 28
Appendices
Appendix A – Study Area Map
Appendix B – Existing Conditions
Appendix C – Alternative Comparison Matrix
Appendix D – Alternative Typical Sections
Appendix E – Alternative Layouts
Appendix F – Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Appendix G – Community Benchmarking Data
Appendix H – Capacity Analysis Report
201902529 Page 1
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Overall Summary and Recommendations
The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to determine the feasibility of adding an alternative transportation
lane along the Frantz Road corridor between Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and W. Bridge Street. Alternatives
were developed and compared to meet this goal and safely accommodate micro-mobility transportation
vehicles. The information included in this study will be used to evaluate the feasibility of these alternatives
and provide a basis for recommendations.
Based on current guidelines and regulations, class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles are permitted on roadways
and shared use paths but not sidewalks within Dublin city limits. However, other alternative transportation
vehicles like electric scooters are not permitted on roadways, shared use paths, or sidewalks within Dublin
city limits, per an April 16, 2019 interview with ThisWeekNews.com where City of Dublin Assistant City
Manager Michelle Crandall stated that scooters are not permitted on roadways or shared-use paths.
Modifying this policy would be one of the first steps in making alternative transportation feasible within the
study area. If micro-mobility transportation vehicles, such as electric scooters and electric bikes, are desired
for transportation in Dublin, the City of Dublin should consider some sort of policy change to make this type
of alternative transportation allowable within the City of Dublin, including along the Frantz Road corridor.
The following alternatives were considered to evaluate the feasibility of the alternative transportation lane.
A No-Build alternative.
Alternative 1, which would add new 5’ NB and SB alternative transportation lanes along the road on
either side of roadway by widening to the inside.
Alternative 2, which would add new 5’ NB and SB alternative transportation lanes along the road on
either side of roadway by widening to the outside.
Alternative 3, which would modify/replace the existing shared-use path and sidewalk along one side
of the roadway to provide bidirectional alternative transportation traffic on a single path.
Alternative 4, which would modify/replace the existing shared-use path and sidewalk along both
sides of the roadway to provide single direction alternative transportation traffic alongside
pedestrian traffic.
Two additional alternatives were considered and not advanced further based on safety and/or traffic
operation issues and deemed as non-feasible options. These issues will be discussed later in the study. They
have been included in the study for comparison purposes.
Alternative 5, which would add a new 10’ bidirectional alternative transportation lane along one side
of the roadway.
Alternative 6, which converts one lane of travel to a 12’ bidirectional alternative transportation lane.
201902529 Page 2
The seven alternatives briefly described above are described in further detail in a later section of this study.
Predicted safety benefits, drainage, utility, aesthetic, ease of construction, and right-of-way impacts, along
with an opinion of probable construction costs for each alternative, will be discussed and used to compare
and differentiate the alternatives. After a thorough analysis of each of the above alternatives, we
recommend the No-Build Alternative for the Frantz Road Corridor, with adjustments to City codes and
regulations as the preferred alternative. Prior to making formal code revisions, we recommend the city
perform a demonstration project to evaluate the best way to allow alternative transportation vehicles, by
code, on the existing infrastructure along city streets. Dublin City Council would need to suspend the
applicable code requirements for certain paths for a certain period of time to perform this demonstration
project. The results would be used to make recommendations for formal code revisions.
Following formal code changes, the city should reconsider the build alternatives if issues arise with
alternative transportation vehicles utilizing the existing facilities. With the lack of user demand, the costs
and impacts produced by the build alternatives are not beneficial at this time. Information obtained from
the introduction of these vehicles to the existing infrastructure should be utilized to further evaluate
Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 in order to select a preferred build alternative should the city reconsider the build
alternatives in the future. Alternatives 5 and 6 should not be considered further due to safety concerns.
Alternative 2 should not be considered further due to considerable corridor impacts and cost.
1.2 Cost Summary
The total project construction cost, including inflation and contingencies, was estimated for each of the
alternatives considered, based on the preliminary layouts and design. Table 1.1 shows a comparison of the
estimated opinion of probable construction for each alternative. Detailed estimates are included in
Appendix F. Construction costs were estimated using historical bid data observed on recent City of Dublin
projects and a 30-percent contingency. The 30-percent contingency is used to cover the potential discovery
of additional costs as the alternative would be further developed and more detailed information is obtained.
The estimate that will be provided during final design will have zero-percent contingency, since all items will
be accounted for at that time. Item unit costs are shown in year 2020 dollars.
Table 1.1 – Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost
Alternative Description of Alternative Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost Rating
No Build No Build None
1 Alternative transportation lanes with widening into median $1,950,000
2 Alternative transportation lanes with widening to outside $5,380,000
3 Dedicated bidirectional alternative transportation path on
one side of roadway $690,000
4 Shared paths on both sides of roadway $1,300,000
5 Bidirectional alternative transportation lane widening into
median Not Calculated
6 Convert existing travel lane into bidirectional alternative
transportation lane Not Calculated
201902529 Page 3
1.3 Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix
Table 1.2 provides a side-by-side summary comparison of the proposed alternatives based upon the criteria
identified as part of the project’s study approach. See Appendix C for a detailed Alternative Comparison
Matrix which contains a summary of criteria notes for each alternative.
Table 1.2 – Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix
201902529 Page 4
2.0 Introduction/Background
2.1 Study Goals
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of an alternative transportation lane for the Frantz
Road corridor between Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and W. Bridge Street. This lane is proposed to
accommodate micro-mobility transportation vehicles, such as electric scooters and other single rider electric
vehicles. Due to the anticipated rise in micro-mobility vehicle usage, it is critical to study best ways to safely
accommodate these vehicles within the roadway network. This study will evaluate and categorize the
various types of alternative transportation lanes along with the feasibility of each. The goal of this study will
be to identify and develop project alternatives for an alternative transportation lane along this street, while
also minimizing the acquisition of additional right-of-way, impacts existing utilities, and effects on corridor
aesthetics.
2.2 Study Area
The study area is located in Dublin, Ohio. The “Frantz Road corridor” mentioned throughout the study refers
to a section of Frantz Road that commences at the Tuttle Crossing Boulevard intersection to the south and
terminates at the W. Bridge Street intersection to the north. This corridor was studied as an isolated location.
Tie-ins north and south of the corridor to existing facilities was not considered as part of the study. Frantz
Road is a major artery and gateway into the Dublin Corporate Area, which houses Dublin’s legacy office
complexes. The existing roadway corridor is a divided four-lane urban arterial, with a landscaped median for
most of its length. A shared-use path runs along one side of the roadway and a sidewalk on the other, north
of Bradenton Avenue, and sidewalks run along both sides of the road south of Bradenton Avenue. A map
showing the study area can be found in Appendix A. A map showing locations of existing traffic signals, bus
stops, shared use paths, and the boundaries of the Dublin Corporate Area can be found in Appendix B.
2.3 Community Benchmarking
The presence and lessons-learned of existing alternative transportation lanes in other communities is an
important factor in the design and selection of an alternative transportation lane alternative for the Frantz
Road corridor. As part of this study, interviews and/or research was conducted with other sample
communities. These communities include Carmel, IN, Ft. Wayne, IN, Kansas City, MO, and Atlanta, GA. These
communities were selected due to their recent experience introducing alternative transportation vehicles
to their transportation network and work associated with public input, city code changes, and guidance
related to the growing use of alternative transportation vehicles within their communities. Below is a bullet
point list of key findings obtained through the interview/research process. Detailed interview/research
notes can be found in Appendix G.
201902529 Page 5
Any rules/regulations for alternative transportation vehicles?
· Generally follow the same rules/regulations of foot-powered bicycles. (Kansas City)
· Scooters are governed to a speed of 15 mph. (Carmel)
· Vehicle speeds limited to 20 mph. Power output limited to no more than 1,000 watts. (Kansas City)
· Vehicle speeds limited to 15 mph. App-based vehicles governed to 15 mph. (Atlanta)
· Vehicle speeds limited to 15 mph and enforced by bike patrol. (Ft. Wayne)
· Nighttime (9:00pm-4:00am) restrictions on app-based vehicle rentals. (Atlanta)
Where are alternative transportation vehicles permitted?
· Vehicles are permitted in streets, along multi-use paths and greenways. (Carmel)
· Vehicles permitted on sidewalks and multi-use paths, but not in the streets since they do not have a
combustion engine. (Ft. Wayne)
· People should ride in streets or in bike lane where available. (Kansas City)
· No riding on sidewalks. (Kansas City, Atlanta)
· Ride where bikes are allowed, in travel lanes, bike paths, and along shared used pathways. (Atlanta)
Are new facilities being implemented?
· Pilot program was introduced to the existing infrastructure without making improvements first. The
pilot program is being used to gauge how motorized units best fit into the existing transportation
system. (Kansas City)
· Not currently. (Carmel)
Baseline alternative transportation vehicle criteria from Community Benchmarking:
· Generally follows the same guidelines as bicycles.
· Generally permitted in streets, in bike lanes if present, and along shared use paths. Not generally
allow on sidewalks.
· Speeds are generally limited to 15 mph.
· Generally introduced to existing infrastructure and independent facilities strictly for alternative
transportation vehicles are not common.
2.4 Alternative Transportation Vehicle Types and History
Alternative transportation, also known as micro-mobility, generally refers to lightweight, single passenger
vehicles powered by electricity as opposed to combustion engines. These vehicles typically have limited
speeds and ranges due to their type of power. In most research, the term micro-mobility includes human-
powered vehicles such as bicycles and scooters. This study will separate human-powered units, as they are
already accommodated and present along the Frantz Road corridor. Alternative transportation vehicles
studied as part of this report will focus on electric powered vehicles such as e-bikes and e-scooters.
The use of alternative transportation has exponentially increased over the past couple of years. Much of this
increase can be contributed to population growth rates within urban areas. In these locations, alternative
transportation vehicles have the ability to better connect people to public transit and replace cars when
201902529 Page 6
making short trips. Use of electric powered vehicles also have the ability to reduce gas emissions which has
become an important topic more recently. In addition to personally owned electric vehicles, private
investors have capitalized on this increased demand by introducing ride share programs within urbanized
areas. Ride share programs allow users the ability to rent e-bikes or e-scooters using phone apps and
typically pay a per-mile fee. These programs have been introduced to cities by companies such as Lime, Bird,
Zagster, Lyft, Trip Bikes, etc. At this time, there are currently no electric based ride share programs within
the City of Dublin; however, they are present in the nearby cities of Columbus and Upper Arlington. In late
2018, the City of Dublin worked with Lime to introduce a bike share pilot program within their city limits. As
a result of data obtained during this pilot program, Lime determined that suburban environments are not
fitting well with their current business model. The recent redevelopment of the Bridge Street District,
approximately 0.5 miles east of the northern limits of the “Frantz Road Corridor”, will likely lead to increased
demand for alternative transportation with increases in close proximity destinations such as parks,
restaurants, bars, event centers, etc.
2.5 Alternative Transportation Lane Types
As alternative transportation vehicles have been introduced to communities, safety related questions arise.
Most communities have introduced these vehicles to the existing infrastructure without making additional
changes. Sometimes city codes are updated to provide rules and regulations for these vehicles. The most
common update is to define alternative transportation vehicles in the same way as human-powered
bicycles. This is reasonable due to the similarity in size and speeds, when restricted to 15-20mph. Under this
code update, alternative transportation would utilize the same facilities as bicycles such as bike lanes, shared
used paths, and within travel lanes if separate facilities are not available, as well as sidewalks. Proper
separation of vehicle types is an important safety factor that must be considered when selecting an
alternative transportation facility type. Similar to the importance of separating pedestrians from roadway
traffic, it is beneficial to separate limited speed alternative transportation from very-low speed pedestrians
and high-speed roadway traffic.
Below is a list of alternative transportation facility types along with a bullet point list of advantages and
disadvantages for each. A combination of these facility types is included in project alternatives and
compared as part of this study.
Raised “Cycle Track” (Alternative Transportation/Bicycle): A separated path provided behind the roadway
curb that is designated to only be used by medium-speed users such as alternative transportation and
bicycles. A separate sidewalk, typically separated from the alternative transportation lane using a tree lawn,
a curb, or a different texture of pavement, is provided for low-speed users such as pedestrians or wheelchair
users.
· Pro: Vehicle types are completely separated by type. Separation enhances safety.
· Con: Additional right-of-way/cost required to provide independent lanes.
· Con: Additional points of interaction required. (e.g. Crosswalks, driveway crossings)
201902529 Page 7
Shared-use Path (Alternative Transportation/Bicycle/Pedestrian): A single path provided behind the
roadway curb that is used by both medium-speed and low-speed users. Speed types could be divided on the
path through signs, pavement markings, or different material type.
· Pro: Reduced path space needed compared to isolated lane.
· Pro: Merged, single crossing points at intersections and driveways.
· Con: Conflict points possible between path users of differing speeds, such as pedestrians and
bicycles/alternative transportation vehicles, if not properly divided.
· Con: May require additional right-of-way and use of green space.
Conventional or Protected Alternative Transportation/Bicycle Lane along Roadway: A street-level lane in
front of the curb and adjacent to the travel way is provided for medium-speed users. Conventional lanes are
separated from higher-speed traffic using pavement markings only while protected lanes offer physical
protection, often with bounce back delineators such as Qwick-Kurb.
· Pro: Minimal right-of-way required.
· Pro: If provided on both sides of the roadway, directional traffic can be separated.
· Pro: Vehicles would flow through intersections along with adjacent roadway traffic.
· Con: Close proximately to high-speed vehicles decreases user comfort level compared to a physically
separated facility.
· Con: Maintenance and aesthetic issues if bounce back delineators used.
2.6 Study Approach
The primary focus of this study is to determine the feasibility of an alternative transportation lane along the
Frantz Road corridor and meet the study goals described in Section 2.1. The following sections of this
evaluation will provide a description of alternatives considered for comparison.
Existing and projected traffic were analyzed to determine vehicular travel lane needs based on available
capacity. Following preliminary design of each alternative, impacts and costs were identified to quantify
adverse effects caused by the proposed improvements. A matrix was prepared summarizing how each
alternative compares against one another to help identify a preferred alternative.
3.0 Alternatives
3.1 Alternatives
Several alternatives were considered before narrowing them down to the alternatives described below. The
following alternatives were selected for evaluation following preliminary design and communication with
the City of Dublin. Typical sections and plan views for these alternatives can be found in Appendix D and E.
These alternatives were developed to consider the different types of Alternative Transportation Lanes
described in Section 2.5. Alternatives 1 and 2 incorporate conventional alternative transportation/bicycle
lanes, Alternative 3 incorporates a shared use path, Alternative 4 incorporates a raised “cycle track,” and
Alternatives 5 and 6 incorporate a protected bidirectional alternative transportation/bicycle lane. These
201902529 Page 8
different alternatives allow for the examination of how the different types of dedicated alternative
transportation/bicycle infrastructure could be added to the Frantz Road corridor and the impacts that would
result from their implementation.
No-Build Alternative
Based on current guidelines and regulations, class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles are permitted on roadways
and shared use paths but not sidewalks within Dublin city limits. Other alternative transportation vehicles
like electric scooters are not permitted on roadways, shared use paths, or sidewalks within Dublin city limits.
In the no-build alternative, these vehicles will not be allowed to operate along the Frantz Road corridor
unless code changes are enacted. Based on community benchmarking research, most communities allow
alternative transportation vehicles to act in the same way as bicycles. These vehicles are generally prohibited
from sidewalks; however, they are allowed to use shared-use paths and vehicular travel lanes as a bicycle
would. Some cities have used language restricting vehicles that may be used on sidewalks to include only
those that are human powered (e.g. “No person shall drive or operate any vehicle other than by human
power upon a sidewalk”), which would permit bicycles but not electric-powered alternative transportation
vehicles.
Prior to enacting formal code changes, the city could consider a demonstration project that would permit
alternative transportation vehicles to use the city right of way. Dublin City Council would need to suspend
the applicable code requirements to permit alternative transportation vehicles on certain paths and for a
certain amount of time to collect observations on how these vehicles are used within the City of Dublin and
guide future changes to the city code. Given that the City of Dublin currently allows bicycles to be used on
sidewalks, the demonstration project should consider where users of these vehicles prefer to use these
vehicles (e.g. in the travel lane, on shared use paths, or on sidewalks) and identify any issues that arise from
their use. As a result of this demonstration project, recommendations would be made for formal changes to
city code that would allow alternative transportation vehicles to utilize the existing infrastructure along the
Frantz Road corridor.
Alternative 1
In Alternative 1, new 5’ NB and SB alternative transportation lanes along the road on both sides of roadway
is proposed by widening the pavement into the existing median. The existing typical section of Frantz Road
features a landscaped median along most of the corridor. The width of this median is 22’ south of Rings Road
and 26’ north of Rings Road. In this alternative, the additional 10’ required for the alternative transportation
lanes can be achieved by widening Frantz Road to the inside, reducing the width of the landscaped median.
In some locations where there are left turn lanes, the median would be completely removed to provide the
necessary width for the left turn lane and the alternative transportation lanes. These locations can be seen
in the plan views in Appendix E. This alternative maintains the existing outside curb and gutter along with
existing facilities behind the curb and gutter.
Alternative 2
In Alternative 2, new 5’ NB and SB alternative transportation lanes along the road on both sides of roadway
is proposed by widening to the outside of the existing pavement. The proposed intent of this alternative
mimics Alternative 1 with the exception of the outside widening. In this alternative, the inside landscaped
201902529 Page 9
median, including straight curb, will be undisturbed. The additional 10’ required for the alternative
transportation lanes will be achieved by widening Frantz Road to the outside, replacing curb and gutter,
drainage structures, and existing facilities behind the curb and gutter disturbed by the widening.
Muirfield Drive between Moors Place and Glick Road features a bike lane along the roadway similar to what is proposed in
Alternatives 1 and 2. A scooter symbol pavement marking would be included with the bicycle symbol.
Alternative 3
In Alternative 3, a new 10’ bidirectional alternative transportation path is
proposed along one side of the roadway by modifying/replacing the existing
shared-use path or sidewalk. This alternative will avoid any impact or
disturbance to the existing travel lanes outside of what is required to tie the
new path into existing intersections. This alternative will require users of
the alternative transportation path to cross Frantz Road at Rings Road, as
the path is proposed on the west side of Frantz Road north of Rings Road
and on the east side of Frantz Road south of Rings Road.
Alternative transportation vehicles and bicycles, due to similar anticipated
traveling speeds, will share the new bidirectional path. Pedestrians will be
encouraged to use the existing sidewalk along the opposite side of the
roadway. This separation of users could best be accomplished through signs at each intersection such as
“Pedestrians Cross Frantz Road.” In addition to a centerline pavement marking to delineate bidirectional
traffic, bicycle and scooter symbols and arrows would be added near intersections for guidance. These
initiatives should reduce the number of conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and alternative
transportation vehicles.
However, not providing a dedicated walkway for pedestrians adjacent to the bidirectional alternative
transportation path while attempting to prioritize alternative transportation vehicles and bicycles along that
path could create logistical challenges and an uninviting environment for pedestrians. Due to the various
businesses and residences as well as COTA bus stops located along both sides of the Frantz Road corridor,
pedestrians need to have access to both sides of the roadway.
Example sign that could be used
to direct pedestrians to cross to
the other side of Frantz Rd. Sign
would be installed at signalized
intersections next to crosswalks.
201902529 Page 10
Intersection of Dublin Road and N. Riverview Street. Pedestrians can use the shared use path on the one side of the street or the
sidewalk on the other. Additional signs to encourage pedestrians to use the sidewalk would be added along Frantz Road.
Alternative 4
In Alternative 4, two new 10’ shared transportation paths are proposed along both sides of the roadway by
modifying/replacing the existing shared-use path and/or sidewalk. Similar to alternative 3, this alternative
will avoid any impact or disturbance to the existing travel lanes outside of what is required to tie the new
path into existing intersections. Alternative transportation vehicles and bicycles will utilize the half of the
path closer to the roadway while pedestrians will use the other half of the path, closer to development, so
that pedestrians can access those destinations without crossing alternative transportation and bicycle
traffic. The paths would carry one-way alternative transportation and bicycle traffic on either side of the
roadway while pedestrians could travel in both directions.
The separation of mobility types and direction of travel could be accomplished in a variety of ways. At the
least, proposed centerline striping, bike, scooter, and pedestrian symbols, and signs would be installed to
direct users to which side of the path is designed for them and would direct alternative transportation and
bicycle users to path on the correct side of the roadway.
Another option would be using separate surface materials such as concrete for the pedestrian side and
asphalt for the bicycle/alternative transportation side. Recently, an application similar to this was installed
along the north side of Rock Cress Parkway and along the south side of John Shields Parkway, both in Dublin.
At these locations the pedestrian side of the path is brick and the bicycle side is asphalt. Granite bands are
used to separate the two sections as opposed to striping. (Note that, in these locations, the pedestrian
walkway is located closer to the street and the bicycle/asphalt transportation path is located further from
the street, which is the reverse of what is proposed in this alternative.) Meanwhile, Bridge Park Avenue, also
in Dublin, uses brick pavers for both the bicycle and pedestrian sides, with a line of pavers between the two
sides and a bicycle symbol at intersections to indicate which side is for bicycles. Bridge Park Avenue has the
same arrangement proposed in this alternative, with the bicycle path located closer to the street.
201902529 Page 11
Alternative 5
In Alternative 5, a 10’ wide, a street-level bidirectional alternative transportation lane along one side of the
roadway is proposed. Similar to Alternative 1, the pavement widening would be achieved by widening Frantz
Road to the inside, reducing the width of the existing landscaped median and maintaining the existing
outside curb and gutter.
The bidirectional alternative transportation lane would be split into a 4’ NB and 4’ SB lane with a 2’ buffer
between the adjacent vehicular traffic. Barrier separation is recommended as a safety measure to separate
the alternative transportation vehicles from adjacent motorized traffic. As further described in Section 6.0,
this alternative would likely have safety concerns at intersections and driveways with alternative
transportation vehicles approaching from the opposite direction as the near side traffic flow. This also
includes potential conflicts with turning vehicles crossing over the alternative transportation lanes. This
introduces safety concerns compared to Alternative 3, where bidirectional alternative transportation and
bicycle traffic would use a path behind the curb, because drivers are more accustomed to encountering
bicyclists and pedestrians coming from either direction in the existing crosswalks along the corridor than in
a bidirectional lane adjacent to vehicular traffic. Due to these safety concerns compared with the other
alternatives this alternative was not advanced for further consideration.
Intersection of Dublin Road and Rock Cress Parkway showing the different
pavement surface materials used to help with the separation of user types on
shared-use path, similar to what is proposed in Alternative 4.
Signage along the
pathway can also be
provided to alert users to
stay on the designated
section of the path.
201902529 Page 12
Summit Street in the City of Columbus. An example of what is proposed in Alternative 5, with barrier separation. This location
features a high volume of bicycle traffic and one-way vehicle traffic.
Alternative 6
In Alternative 6, one travel lane, either northbound or southbound would be closed to traffic and converted
to be used for alternative transportation. The width of the existing travel lane would be ample enough to
provide two bidirectional lanes along with space for barrier separation. This conversion could be
accomplished within the existing roadway width with minimal impact to adjacent facilities. This alternative
would have a similar configuration as Alternative 5; however, a reduction in impacts to utilities, drainage,
and right-of-way are anticipating by utilizing the existing facilities. Based on traffic capacity analysis, as
detailed below and in Appendix H, a reduction in travel lanes would have significant impacts on vehicle
travel delay. Additional congestion in the corridor roadway could lead to increased rear-end and angle
collisions due to unexpected stops and greater risk taking from delay. As a result, along with the safety
concerns discussed in Alternative 5, this alternative was not advanced for further consideration.
4.0 Traffic Analysis
A traffic analysis was performed to evaluate the Existing Year 2020 and Design Year 2040 traffic operations
of the existing intersections along the study corridor with the existing lane configurations. A traffic analysis
was also performed in order to determine if the existing number of travel lanes could be reduced to
accommodate an alternative transportation lane. The following sections describe the methodology used to
develop traffic volume projections and perform capacity analysis at the study intersections.
4.1 Traffic Volume Projections
Turning movement counts were collected at seven (7) intersections on Frantz Road, and additional traffic
data was obtained from a recent traffic study for three (3) other intersections on Frantz Road. The traffic
volumes were summarized for the AM and PM peak hours at all intersections, in addition to a midday (MD)
peak at select locations. The data collection was utilized to develop traffic volume projections for an Existing
201902529 Page 13
Year 2020 and Design Year 2040. Traffic projections provided within the report are considered preliminary
and meet the requirements of the study. The traffic projections were reviewed by the City of Dublin.
Future growth between the years 2020 and 2040 was determined based on a comparison of travel demand
model outputs provided by the City of Dublin for the respective analysis years. Growth rates were estimated
for each leg at all study intersections. The annual linear growth rates used for this study are provided in
Appendix H.
4.2 Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis was performed at each study intersection for the Opening Year 2020 and Design Year 2040
No-Build conditions. The No-Build analysis of the existing conditions evaluated the study intersections with
existing lane configurations, traffic control types, and signal timings. No-Build analysis for the Design Year
2040 evaluated the study intersections with the future projected growth in traffic volumes.
The capacity analysis for the No-Build scenarios is based on the methodology outlined in the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). The standard parameter used to evaluate traffic operating conditions is referred to
as Level-of-Service (LOS). The operating conditions of intersections were considered to be acceptable if
found to operate at LOS D or better for the overall intersection and for each approach. The 95th percentile
queue lengths on each approach were considered to be unacceptable if shown to have an impact on
adjacent intersections, i.e. queue spillback that extends beyond the upstream intersection. A volume-to-
capacity (v/c) ratio of 1.0 or higher was considered unacceptable, as this indicates that an approach has
inadequate capacity to handle the demand volume.
Alternatives 1 through 5 generally do not impact the overall capacity along the Frantz Road corridor, as each
of those proposed alternative transportation lane concepts maintain the existing number of travel lanes and
turn lanes at each of the study intersections. With the addition of an alternative transportation lane, there
would potentially be minor impacts to intersection capacity due to slight increases in clearance intervals (all
red clearance and/or pedestrian walk intervals); however, these would be minimal increases of less than
1.0-sec per movement. These increases to the clearance intervals are negligible with regard to the overall
performance of an intersection; therefore, additional capacity analysis for those alternatives was not
necessary. Additionally, because these alternatives do not impact the capacity along the corridor, no
intersection improvements were considered to be required.
Alternative 6, which removes a travel lane in lieu of an alternative transportation lane, does impact capacity
along the corridor. A capacity analysis was performed for the Design Year 2040 traffic volumes to account
for both of the following options: northbound reduced to a single travel lane and southbound reduced to a
single travel lane. The capacity analysis results for the single travel lane alternatives showed that multiple
intersections along the study corridor will result in LOS F operations. Several intersections were shown to
operate with significant average vehicle delays (> 1.0 minute) and queue lengths on Frantz Road that would
spill back into/beyond adjacent intersections. Additionally, v/c ratios at multiple intersections exceeded the
1.0 criteria threshold. Operating conditions such as this lead to heavy congestion along the corridor and can
be highly detrimental to safety along the corridor as more crashes are likely to occur. Providing only one
travel lane as an alternative is not considered to be feasible from a capacity standpoint.
201902529 Page 14
To facilitate intersection analyses, the computer software Synchro 9.0 (implementing HCM 6 methodologies)
was used for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Tables summarizing the capacity analysis results
at all study intersections for the No-Build scenarios and for the Alternative 6 Build scenario are provided in
Appendix H. The Synchro outputs are also provided in Appendix H. Table 4.1 includes a summary of the
traffic capacity impacts of the alternatives.
Table 4.1 – Traffic Capacity Impacts Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
No Build,
1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5
Do not impact roadway capacity.
6 Removal of a single travel lane in one direction.
4.3 Intersection Control Considerations
All alternatives require additional considerations for intersection control in order to accommodate the
proposed configuration of the respective alternative transportation lane concepts.
Alternatives 1 and 2
In Alternatives 1 and 2, users of the NB and SB alternative transportation lanes on either side of the roadway
would be able to travel with the flow of mainline traffic along Frantz Road. At the signalized intersections,
the existing traffic signal heads would also be sufficient for the alternative transportation lane users.
However, additional signs should be considered to warn drivers to yield to pedestrians and e-mobility users
at potential turning conflicts. Signs such as the modified R10-15 sign (see next page) could be mounted on
the mast arms to alert turning drivers to yield to pedestrians, bicyclists, and e-mobility users. Modifications
to the lane control signs approaching an intersection would also be required to account for the dedicated
alternative transportation lane. These signs would replace the existing intersection lane control signs.
Modified R10-15 sign instructing drivers to yield to bicyclists and
pedestrians when turning at intersections. Typically the sign
would be mounted on the traffic signal mast arm at signalized
intersections.
Modified intersection lane control sign
indicating the presence of a bike lane.
201902529 Page 15
Alternative 3
In Alternative 3, users of the bidirectional alternative transportation path would be separated from the
mainline travel lanes. At the signalized intersections, either dedicated alternative transportation path signal
heads (for both directions) or signs instructing alternative transportation and bicycle users to follow the
pedestrian signal would be needed. All of the signals along Frantz Road operate with recall on for the NB
and SB directions; therefore, the alternative transportation path signal heads would be able to operate with
green/yellow/red intervals concurrent to the mainline flow, and detection would not be necessary.
Additional signs should be provided at the signalized intersections to warn drivers to yield to e-mobility users
at potential turning conflicts.
For the instances where a user of the alternative transportation path would turn onto a side-street, the e-
mobility user must utilize the pedestrian crossings and would behave similarly to a pedestrian.
Where the alternative transportation path crosses from the east side of Frantz Road to the west side of
Frantz Road at Rings Road, additional signs would need to be provided to direct bicycle and e-mobility users
to cross. These signs could use bicycle and e-scooter symbols with arrows to guide users through the
intersections. The signs should be placed near the crosswalks that bicycle and e-mobility users will use to
cross Frantz Road.
Alternative 4
In Alternative 4, users of the two shared transportation paths along both sides of the roadway would
experience similar operations at signalized intersections as compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 except the
alternative transportation path is separated from the roadway. Dedicated signal heads, or enhanced
signalized pedestrian crossings, should be provided for the shared transportation paths which can run
concurrently with the respective NB and SB thru phases on Frantz Road. Additional signs should be provided
to warn drivers to yield to shared use path users at potential turning conflicts (see modified R10-15 sign on
page 14). These signs are typically mounted on the traffic signal mast arms at signalized intersections and
can also be mounted on posts on the side of the road at unsignalized intersections.
Typical bike signal with bike-symbol lenses and
accompanying bike signal sign. When used, bike
signals should be placed so that they are clearly
visible to oncoming bicycles. Near-sided bicycle
signals can also be provided to supplement far-
sided signals for increased visibility.
R9-5 sign instructs bicycle
users to follow pedestrian
signal indications. When
used, this sign is typically
placed near the pedestrian
signal head.
Example sign that could be used to
direct bicyclists and e-mobility users
to cross Frantz Rd at the intersection
of Rings Rd, where the path cross
from the east side to the west side of
Frantz Rd in Alternative 3.
201902529 Page 16
Alternatives 5 and 6
In Alternatives 5 and 6, users of the bidirectional alternative transportation lane would be adjacent to motor
vehicle traffic. At a minimum, additional signal heads would be required for the contraflow users of the
bidirectional alternative transportation lane. Additional signs should also be provided at the signalized
intersections to warn drivers to yield to e-mobility users at potential turning conflicts (see modified R10-15
sign on page 14).
5.0 Roadway Assessment
Existing roadway limits and property lines were obtained from survey data conducted as part of a prior
project within the study area, Frantz Road Streetscape Improvements (18-010-CIP). Design criteria for Frantz
Road was developed based on existing characteristics of the roadways, City of Dublin standard drawings,
and standards outlined in ODOT’s Location and Design Manual, Volume 1. This includes establishing the
following conditions for each alternative: Minimum 11’ through lanes and 11’ turn lanes (with 10’ turn lanes
in limited locations due to limited existing pavement width), 2’ curb and gutter, minimum 8’ shared use path,
minimum 4’ sidewalk (with 5’ sidewalk in the commercial areas at the far north and south ends of the
corridor, matching existing), and standard 8’ tree lawns where feasible. Frantz Road is a minor arterial with
a posted speed of 35 mph.
Based on community benchmarking and research of alternative transportation vehicles, the design of
facilities necessary for these vehicles should mimic facilities designed for bicycles. The design criteria
described below, and typical sections as part of Appendix D, for the alternative transportation lane and/or
path is based on guidelines and standards stated within the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities – 4th Edition.
The standard provided in Section 4.6.4 of the AASHTO Guide minimum bike lane width is 5’ from the face of
curb to the edge line; however, in locations where a 2’ wide gutter is used, the preferred bike lane width is
6’ inclusive of the gutter. The proposed alternatives feature a more conservative 5’ from edge of pavement
to edge line. Minimum width for a shared use path shall be 10’ with 8’ allowable for short distances with
physical constraints. Alternatives 3 and 4 feature a 10’ path that will be striped down the middle to help
separate user types or direction of travel.
The idea of adding a vertical barrier to separate an alternative transportation lane from adjacent travel lanes
was considered in the development of the proposed alternatives. This was considered as a way of improving
safety and minimizing conflict between vehicles. With regard to conventional bike lanes, Section 4.7.1 of the
AASHTO Guide states “Raised pavement markers, curbs, posts, or barriers should not be used to separate
bike lanes from adjacent travel lanes. Raised devices are difficult for bicyclists to traverse because they are
fixed to the pavement surface immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist. In addition, raised
devices may discourage or prevent right-turning motorists from merging into the bike lane before turning.
Raised devices can also make it more difficult to maintain the bike lane.” Alternatives 1 and 2 that propose
an alternative transportation lane will not utilize barrier separation and will be divided from adjacent travel
lanes using an edge line only.
201902529 Page 17
In the years since the publication of the 4th Edition of the AASHTO Guide, additional publications from FHWA
(Federal Highway Administration), NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials), and other
agencies have provided guidance on the development of protected or separated bike facilities, which are
not included in the AASHTO Guide. This includes bikeway facilities such as cycle tracks, protected bike lanes,
and bidirectional bike lanes. These types of facilities can be provided within the roadway footprint (in front
of the curb) but require physical separation from motor vehicle traffic. Alternatives 5 and 6, which provide
a bidirectional bike lane in front of the curb, would thus benefit from including barrier separation because
the alternative transportation lane would have bidirectional traffic and thus would need to be further
protected from motor vehicle users compared to a conventional bike lane that travels in the same direction
as motor vehicle traffic. Barrier separation, such as Qwick Kurb with vertical markers, would be an important
safety enhancement.
In Alternatives 2, roadway widening would result in modifications to the existing curb line along Frantz Road.
This would require the reconstruction of radius returns at each of the intersections and corresponding
reconstruction of the curb ramps at those intersections. In Alternatives 3 and 4, a new 10’ path replaces
either the existing shared use path or existing sidewalk on one or both sides of the street. At these locations,
the existing curb ramps and crosswalks at intersections would have to be modified to accommodate the
path width.
6.0 Safety Assessment
Safety is an important factor in the development and selection of the proposed alternatives. Safety is also a
significant factor in the comparison and selection of a preferred alternative and has a major factor in public
perception of the success of an implemented alternative. Safety must be evaluated for every affected user
type, including alternative transportation vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and roadway traffic. Although
difficult to measure during the planning stage, anticipated safety benefits and/or conflicts have been
evaluated and described below for each alternative.
The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing shared use path on the west side of the roadway north
of Rings Road and sidewalk throughout the rest of the corridor. With no changes to city code, class 1 and
class 2 electric bikes would be allowed to use the shared use path and travel lanes while other alternative
transportation vehicles such as electric scooters would remain unable to be used in the corridor. If city code
is changed to allow alternative transportation vehicles to be used on shared use paths and in the travel
lanes, there would be no dedicated facilities for alternative transportation vehicles aside from the shared
use path. In the sections of Frantz Road where there is no existing shared use path, alternative
transportation vehicles would be mixed with motor vehicle traffic in the travel lanes. If city code is changed
to also allow the use of alternative transportation vehicles on sidewalks, these vehicles would be able to use
the sidewalks as well in locations where there is no existing shared use path. Prior to making formal code
changes, a demonstration project should be performed to evaluate the safety concerns with using
alternative transportation vehicles in each of these locations (in the roadway, on shared use paths, and on
sidewalks) in order to develop meaningful code. Dublin City Council would need to suspend applicable code
requirements on certain paths for a certain period of time in order to perform this demonstration project
201902529 Page 18
evaluating safety concerns and other impacts resulting from alternative transportation vehicles using the
existing infrastructure.
Alternatives 1 and 2 both add an alternative transportation lane alongside of travel lanes and would have
similar impacts on safety. These alternatives would separate the alternative transportation vehicles from
motorized vehicles; however, the two vehicle types would be separated by only pavement markings so the
potential for overlap still exists. By placing alternative transportation vehicles in the roadway, slower speed
pedestrians will have no overlap with these vehicles outside of the roadway, other than at roadway
crossings.
Alternative 3 provides alternative transportation vehicles and bicycles with their own shared path outside
the roadway and separated from pedestrians. However, because a dedicated pedestrian walkway is only
provided along one side of the roadway, there would be some conflicts between alternative transportation
vehicles/bicycles and pedestrians along the alternative transportation/bicycle path. While pedestrians can
be encouraged to use the sidewalk on one side of the roadway, they cannot be prohibited from using the
alternative transportation/bicycle path in order to provide pedestrian access to businesses and residences
along the Frantz Road corridor as well as COTA bus stops. Additionally, because the alternative
transportation/bike path changes from the east side of Frantz Road south of Rings Road to the west side of
Frantz Road north of Rings Road, there will be some conflicts between various users at the intersection as
well as the possibility users continuing on along the sidewalk or path on the same side of the roadway instead
of crossing to the appropriate path.
In this alternative, the path would be bi-directional so conflict could exist along the path between users
traveling in opposite directions. Alternative transportation vehicles interaction with motorized vehicles
would be limited to driveway crossings and roadway intersections. At driveway crossings and roadway
intersections, alternative transportation vehicles could approach from either direction, similar to how
bicycles can approach from either direction on the existing shared use paths along the Frantz Road corridor
and throughout Dublin.
Alternative 4 positions alternative transportation vehicles and bicycles on a shared path with pedestrians.
Pedestrians will be separated from faster moving alternative vehicles and bicycles by pavement markings or
different surface materials. In this alternative, the alternative vehicle and bicycle side of the path would be
one way so potential conflict between like users would be reduced. Alternative transportation vehicles
interaction with motorized vehicles would be limited to safe crossings and roadway intersections.
Alternative 5 safety is similar to Alternatives 1 and 2; however, it is anticipated to have a higher chance of
conflict with motorized vehicles. This is due to alternative transportation vehicles and bicycles traveling in
the opposite direction as adjacent motorized traffic. Crossing locations specifically would be an area of
concern as turning vehicles are not as accustomed to bike lane traffic traveling in the opposite direction as
they are to pedestrians and bicycles coming from both directions at a crosswalk. Additional measures, such
as colored pavement for the alternative transportation lanes, “turning vehicles yield to bikes” signs (see
modified R10-15 sign pictured in section 4.3), and protected phasing at signalized intersections may be
considered to address the safety challenges of driver expectancy at driveways and cross streets.
Alternative 6 safety is similar to Alternatives 5; however, it is anticipated to be somewhat safer for users of
the alternative transportation/bicycle lane due to a reduction in adjacent travel lanes. However, increased
201902529 Page 19
congestion on the roadway could lead to increased rear-end and angle collisions due to unexpected stops
and greater risk taking from delay.
Table 6.1 includes a summary of safety impacts for each alternative. These safety ratings are separated by
user type. An overall rating was also given to compare the overall safety between each of the alternatives.
The overall rating takes into account the safety of each alternative compared to the other alternatives and
is not an average of the three user types. Additional weight was given to the safety of pedestrians and
alternative transportation vehicles, as compared to motorized vehicles, when providing an overall rating.
This is due to the potential severity of injury accidents for non-motorized user types. This overall rating has
been included with the overall alternative comparison matrix in Appendix C.
Table 6.1 – Safety Summary
Alternative Impact Description Alter.
Trans. Peds Motor-
ized
Overall
Rating
No Build Alternative transportation not currently allowed. No dedicated
facilities.
1 Alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized vehicles.
Separated from peds and bicycles.
2 Alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized vehicles.
Separated from peds and bicycles.
3 Path separated from motorized vehicles. Road crossings at X-walks.
Alternative vehicles will cross driveways from both directions.
4 Path separated from motorized vehicles; however, adjacent to peds.
Road crossings at X-walks.
5 Bi-directional alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized
vehicles.
6 Bi-directional alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized
vehicles. Likely additional motorized vehicle crashes due to congestion.
In addition to safety, there is perceived safety and comfortability of the alternative transportation users. In
general, transportation users do not like to be mixed with other modes of transportation. On April 2, 2019,
a memo was prepared by the City of Dublin that summarized a survey that solicited 837 responses related
to the introduction of electric scooters within city limits. Some key questions/answers obtained from this
survey are listed below:
Q: Where would you feel comfortable operating an electric scooter?
A: Streets 26-35 mph: 12% Recreation paths: 44%
Q: If you do not intend to use electric scooters, where would you feel most comfortable allowing others to
ride them?
A: Streets 26-35 mph: 11% Recreation paths: 42%
In general, the survey showed that more people prefer alternative transportation facilities be incorporated
outside of the roadway limits as opposed to adjacent to vehicular traffic. Table 6.2 includes a summary of
how alternative transportation would be integrated with other modes of transportation for each alternative.
201902529 Page 20
The survey response above have been taken into account to provide a rating that has been included with
the overall alternative comparison matrix.
Table 6.2 – Integration with other Transportation Modes Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
No Build Alternative transportation not currently allowed.
1 Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane. Cars separated by markings.
2 Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane. Cars separated by markings.
3 Path shared with bicycles. Cars completely separate. Peds encouraged to use other side.
4 Path shared with bicycles and peds. Peds separated by markings.
5 Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane bi-directional lane. Cars separated by physical barrier.
6 Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane bi-directional lane. Cars separated by physical barrier.
7.0 Drainage Assessment
The entirety of the Frantz Road corridor is comprised of curb and gutter, which collects pavement drainage
and enters closed drainage systems via curb inlets. There are no open ditches along the corridor within the
study limits. Several closed drainage systems exist throughout the corridor and help convey storm water to
major outlet points. These outlet points are an unnamed creek north of Parkcenter Avenue, Cramer Ditch
north of Bradenton Avenue, an unnamed ditch north of Rings Road, Cosgray Ditch north of Monterey Drive,
and an unnamed creek north of Corbins Mill Drive. In addition to the closed drainage systems, there are
large existing culverts that cross Frantz Road at two of the locations mentioned above. These include a 13’-
5’ four-sided box culvert at Cosgray Ditch, constructed in 2019 and a 12’-8’ three-sided box culvert at Cramer
Ditch, constructed in 1984. Both culverts have an operational status of “A” based on recent inspections.
The No Build Alternative would have no impacts on existing drainage.
Alternative 1 is anticipated to have no impacts to the existing drainage system. Pavement widening
proposed with this alternative would cause an increase in pavement spread which will need to be calculated
as part of the project design. However, with the increase in shoulder width due to the addition of the
alternative transportation lane, the curb inlets are likely to be spaced appropriately. Similar to the adjacent
travel lane, the alternative travel lane would carry stormwater spread during rain events.
Alternatives 2, which proposes widening the outside of the roadway and constructing new curb and gutter
would also require the construction of new curb inlets and modifications to the existing closed drainage
systems. At culvert crossings, the existing culverts will require extension with new headwalls to maintain
recommended tree lawn widths.
201902529 Page 21
Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would widen existing shared use paths and/or sidewalks. This widening is minimal
and could be accomplished without impact to the existing culverts with minor reductions in the existing tree
lawn width at crossings. Similar to Alternative 2, to maintain recommended tree lawn widths, the existing
culverts will require extension with new headwalls. These alternatives would add impervious area to the
drainage areas outside the roadway pavement area. Curb inlet spacing would need to be verified based on
this increase in impervious area and additional curb inlets may be necessary to account for the additional
impervious area. Unlike Alternative 1, the shared use paths outside the roadway pavement do not
contribute towards the allowable stormwater spread on the roadway pavement.
For comparison sake, the rejected Alternative 5 would have a similar impact to existing drainage as
Alternative 1 (no anticipated impacts). Alternative 6 is anticipated to have no impact to existing drainage
similar to the no-build alternative as there is no new impervious area added.
Table 7.1 includes a summary of drainage impacts for each alternative. These impacts are included with the
overall alternative comparison matrix.
Table 7.1 – Drainage Impact Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
No Build No impacts.
1 No impacts anticipated.
2 Replacement of all curb inlets. Possible culvert extensions and headwall modifications.
3 Possible culvert extensions and headwall modifications.
4 Possible culvert extensions and headwall modifications.
5 No impacts anticipated.
6 No impacts anticipated.
8.0 Right-of-Way Assessment
Existing right-of-way linework shown on the Alternative Layouts was determined as part of a prior project,
Frantz Road Streetscape Improvements (18-010-CIP). The Frantz Road corridor generally consists of a 100’
right-of-way width, with 50’ on either side of the roadway centerline. There is some variation in the 100’
width along the north end of the study where there is the presence of right turn lanes.
Areas exist throughout the corridor where the existing shared use path extend outside the limits of the right-
of-way. Through research of existing plans, there appear to be bike path/pathway easements in these areas
which allow future maintenance/modifications to the paths, however some of these easements do limit the
width of the path to 8 feet. It is likely that new easements or permanent right-of-way would need to be
acquired in order to construct any new path in these areas.
201902529 Page 22
In general, locations where existing shared use paths and sidewalks are located within the right-of-way, the
outside edge of these surfaces are approximately 1’ inside the right-of-way line. Widening of existing
facilities beyond the existing outside curb line without reducing tree lawn widths would result in the need
for additional right-of-way and/or bike path easements, with additional right-of-way of up to approximately
5’ required for some segments of the corridor, or more if new easements or permanent right-of-way need
to be acquired for path that is already outside of the existing right-of-way. These right-of-way acquisitions
will have limited impacts to parking lots and should not impact any buildings; however setback requirements
along the corridor may need to be analyzed further to determine if there would be any issues from reduced
setbacks.
The No Build Alternative would have no impacts on right-of-way.
Alternative 1 is anticipated to have no impacts to right-of-way. Widening pavement to the inside by reducing
the median width would not involve any work that would require additional right-of-way or easements.
Alternative 2 proposes widening the outside of the roadway and would cause increases in the overall
pavement width. If standard tree lawn widths were to be maintained, existing shared use paths and
sidewalks would require relocations away from the center of the roadway. This relocation would result in
the need for additional right-of-way and/or bike path easements.
Alternative 3 would widen the existing shared use path along the west side of the roadway (north of Rings
Road) from 8’ to 10’. Where the tree lawn width is greater than the standard width of 8’, it is recommended
that this widening be accomplished by reducing the tree lawn width in locations where right-of-way may be
tight. There are likely locations where this would not be possible and additional right-of-way or path
easements would be required on the west side of the corridor, as well as locations where existing bike path
easements specify an 8’ path width that would require new easements or permanent right of way.
Additionally, Alternative 3 would widen the 4’ existing sidewalk along the east side of the roadway (south of
Rings Road) to a 10’ path. This would likely require additional right of way along the east side of the corridor
but is not expected to impact existing parking lots or buildings.
Alternative 4 would widen the existing shared use path and sidewalk along the west side of the roadway
from 8’ (for the shared use path) and 4’ (for the sidewalk) to 10’, which would require additional right of
way or bike path easements along the west side of the roadway. Additionally, Alternative 4 would widen the
existing 4’ sidewalk on the east side of the roadway with a 10’ path which would also require additional right
of way for the length of the corridor in order to maintain recommended tree lawn widths.
For comparison sake, the rejected Alternative 5 would have a similar impact to right-of-way as Alternative
1 (no anticipated impacts). Alternative 6 is anticipated to have no impact to existing right-of-way similar to
Alternative 1.
Table 8.1 includes a summary of anticipated right-of-way impacts for each alternative. These impacts are
included with the overall alternative comparison matrix.
201902529 Page 23
Table 8.1 – Right-of-Way Impact Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
Anticipated
Number of
Impacted Parcels
No Build No impacts. 0
1 No impacts anticipated. 0
2 Likely need for additional right-of-way/bike path easements along both sides
of roadway. 44
3 Need for additional right-of-way/bike path easements possible along west side
(north of Rings Road) and likely along east side (south of Rings Road)
17
4 Need for additional right-of-way/bike path easements possible along one side
and likely along the other side of the roadway.
44
5 No impacts anticipated. 0
6 No impacts anticipated. 0
9.0 Utility Assessment
Several utilities were discovered along the Frantz Road corridor through site visits within the study area.
Items identified during these site visits include fire hydrants, gas markers, telecommunication manholes and
pedestals, street lighting, and traffic signal equipment. As part of the evaluation process, utility owner
communication and existing plans were compiled from two recent projects within the study area. These
were the Frantz Road Streetscape Improvements (18-010-CIP) and the Frantz Road at Cosgray Creek Bridge
Maintenance (19-007-CIP) projects. Review of all recent utility correspondence as part of these projects
produced the following list of utility owners and respective facilities within the corridor:
AEP: An underground transmission backbone runs the length of the study area. This transmission line is
generally located approximately 2-10 feet west of the edge of the existing shared use path. The line is
connected through a series of manholes with nearby switch gear and transformers.
Time Warner Cable: An underground duct bank runs the length of the study area, within the same trench
as the AEP transmission line. The duct bank is connected by a series of vaults.
Columbus FiberNet & Dublink: underground conduits run the length of the study along the west side of the
roadway in the general location of the AEP transmission line or within the tree lawn area on the west side.
Columbia Gas: A 6” gas distribution line runs the length of the study area, generally inside the western curb
and gutter line or under the existing shared use path.
City of Columbus & Dublin: A 12” water line runs the length of the study area, just behind the eastern curb
and gutter line. 8”, 10”, and 21” sanitary lines are present in the study area. These lines are all located west
of the western shared use path. Also located along the corridor are City owned underground traffic conduit
and wiring for existing signals and street lighting (where present). These underground lines are generally
201902529 Page 24
located within the western tree lawn. Signal poles are located at each corner of their associated intersection.
Locations of signalized intersections are identified in the Traffic Analysis section of the study.
Based on the utility information compiled above, a majority of the existing utilities along Frantz Road are
located along the west side of the roadway near the curb and gutter, in the tree lawn, or near the shared
use path. The exception to this is the existing 12” water line located behind the east side curb and gutter.
Due to their size and/or configuration, relocation of these utilities would lead to significant cost added to
the project.
The No Build Alternative would have no impacts on existing utilities.
Alternative 1 is anticipated to have no impacts to the existing utilities due to lack of facilities located near
the center of the roadway.
Alternative 2, which widens the outside of the roadway and constructs new curb and gutter is anticipated
to cause a large utility impact. Widening the east side of the roadway impact the existing 12” water line
including, but not limited to fire hydrant relocations. Widening the west side of the roadway has the
potential of impacting the existing gas, telecommunication, and power lines. In addition to these impacts,
roadway widening would result in relocation of traffic signal and street lighting poles.
Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would widen existing shared use paths and/or sidewalks. On the west side of the
roadway, this widening is minimal and could likely be accomplished without impact to the existing utilities
with minor reductions in the existing tree lawn widths where existing widths exceed the standard 8’ tree
lawn width. In Alternative 3, this widening only occurs north of Rings Road while in Alternative 4, this
widening happens for the entire length of the corridor. On the east side of the roadway, where existing 4’
sidewalk is being widened to a 10’ path, there will be impacts to several utility boxes that are located close
to the existing sidewalk. In Alternative 3, this widening only occurs south of Rings Road while in Alternative
4, this widening happens for the entire length of the corridor.
Alternative 4 would replace the existing sidewalk with a wider path; however, this occurs on the east side of
the roadway where less utilities are present.
For comparison sake, the rejected Alternative 5 would have a similar impact to existing utilities as
Alternative 1 (no anticipated impacts). Alternative 6 is anticipated to have no impact to existing utilities
similar to Alternative 1.
Table 9.1 includes a summary of utility impacts for each alternative. These impacts are included with the
overall alternative comparison matrix.
201902529 Page 25
Table 9.1 – Utility Impact Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
No Build No impacts.
1 No impacts anticipated.
2 Signal/light pole relocations. Possible impact to underground utilities, including AEP transmission and
water line.
3 Possible minor impact to underground utilities within tree lawn areas and under path on one side of
roadway.
4 Possible minor impact to underground utilities within tree lawn areas and under path on both sides of
roadway.
5 No impacts anticipated.
6 No impacts anticipated.
10.0 Additional Assessments
The following sections will include a description of additional criteria used to compare the proposed
alternatives. These items have a high impact on public perception of the alternatives and are critical in the
identification of a preferred alternative.
10.1 Aesthetic/Corridor Impacts
Classified as a minor arterial by the City of Dublin Thoroughfare Plan, the Frantz Road corridor is a major
backbone route through the City of Dublin with an approximate average daily traffic of 20,000 vehicles per
day. Several commercial and residential developments are located along the corridor with more
developments currently under design and/or construction. Due to the high number of users and destination
points, aesthetic features are an important factor to the corridor.
Frantz Road features a wide (22-26’) raised median along a large portion of the existing corridor. This median
contains large trees, decorative plantings, and brick pavers that provide screening between opposing
directions of traffic and add visual appeal to the corridor. In addition to planting within the median, existing
tree lawns along both sides of the roadway contain a combination of medium and small trees. These trees
help in providing visual separation between path users and the travel lanes and also visually narrow the
corridor, helping with speed compliance.
Table 10.1 includes a summary of aesthetic/corridor impacts for each alternative. These impacts are
included with the overall alternative comparison matrix.
201902529 Page 26
Table 10.1 – Aesthetic/Corridor Impact Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
No Build No impacts.
1 Reduced median width will impact large trees. Could be replaced with smaller vegetation that requires
less space.
2 No impact to median vegetation. Impact to small tree lawn trees that can be replaced.
3 No impact to median vegetation. Impact to small tree lawn trees along one side that can be replaced.
4 No impact to median vegetation. Impact to small tree lawn trees along both sides. Most can be
replaced.
5 Reduced median width will impact large trees. Could be replaced with smaller vegetation that requires
less space.
6 No impacts.
10.2 Ease of Construction/Maintenance of Traffic
For the reasons described in the previous section, delayed construction time and maintaining existing traffic
through the work zone would affect a large number of users and have a significant impact to public
perception. The complexity of each alternative could produce additional cost and time required to construct
the proposed improvements. When comparing and identifying preferred alternatives, it is import to consider
the impact to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, and adjacent businesses and residents.
Table 10.2 includes a summary of ease of construction and maintenance of traffic for each alternative. These
impacts are included with the overall alternative comparison matrix.
Table 10.2 – Ease of Construction/Maintenance of Traffic Summary
Alternative Impact Description Rating
No Build No impacts.
1 Fair amount of roadway work needed. Reduced construction timeframe due to avoidance of
drainage/utilities. Long-term lane closures.
2 Significant roadway and drainage work needed. Longer construction timeframe due to drainage/utility
relocation. Long-term lane closures.
3 No roadway work needed. Path along one side replaced.
4 No roadway work needed. Paths along both sides replaced.
5 Fair amount of roadway work needed. Reduced construction timeframe due to avoidance of
drainage/utilities. Long-term lane closures.
6 Roadway work limited to resurfacing and restriping. Reduced construction timeframe due to avoidance
of drainage/utilities.
201902529 Page 27
10.3 Cost Summary
The total project construction costs, including inflation and contingencies, were established based on the
preliminary layouts and design of each alternative. Table 10.3 shows a comparison of the estimated option
of probable construction costs for each alternative. Detailed estimates are included in Appendix F.
Construction costs were estimated using historical bid data observed on recent City of Dublin projects, a 15-
percent inflation, and a 30-percent contingency.
Table 10.3 – Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost
Alternative Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost Rating
No Build None
1 $1,950,000
2 $5,380,000
3 $690,000
4 $1,300,000
5 Not Calculated
6 Not Calculated
11.0 Alternatives Comparison
11.1 Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix
Table 11.1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the proposed alternatives based upon the criteria
identified as part of the project’s study approach. See Appendix C for a detailed Alternative Comparison
Matrix which contains a summary of criteria notes for each alternative.
201902529 Page 28
Table 11.1 – Summary Alternative Comparison Matrix
12.0 Recommendations
12.1 Conclusion
Based on a thorough review of the information presented in this study, we recommend the No-Build
Alternative, with adjustments to City codes and regulations based on the outcomes of a demonstration
project as the preferred alternative. As the regulations are changed to permit these types of vehicles,
alternative transportation use should be monitored to assess the potential need for additional
infrastructure. The compilation of benchmarking interview data showed that most communities introduced
the use of alternative transportation vehicles to the existing infrastructure prior to constructing
improvements. This sometimes required revisions to City codes and regulations to dictate where these
vehicles are permitted. Within the City of Dublin, there has been little demand to date for alternative
transportation. In late 2018, Lime launched a pilot program for dockless bike share in Dublin. After the
completion of the pilot program, Lime made the decision to end their bike share program in Dublin, citing
the City’s suburban layout as a barrier for meeting their current business model.
201902529 Page 29
Based on current guidelines and regulations, class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles are permitted on roadways
and shared use paths but not sidewalks within Dublin city limits. Other alternative transportation vehicles
like electric scooters are not permitted to utilize the existing infrastructure at all, including on roadways,
shared use paths, or sidewalks within Dublin city limits. Our recommendation is to modify these codes to
allow the use of alternative transportation vehicles in the same places where bicycles are allowed to be used
within the City of Dublin: on existing shared-use paths, sidewalks, and in travel lanes. The one possible
exception to this modification would be the recommendation that alternative transportation vehicles be
prohibited from using sidewalks. Additionally, we recommend modifying city codes to limit the speed of
alternative transportation vehicles to 15 mph, which will align with the limit for these types of vehicles in
the City of Columbus.
In order to help determine the changes that should be made to the city codes and regulations, we
recommend the City consider a demonstration project to better evaluate and determine the best way to
allow alternative transportation vehicles, by code, within the existing infrastructure along city streets. Dublin
City Council would need to suspend the applicable code requirements on certain shared use paths and for a
certain period of time in order to complete the demonstration project.
The demonstration project would review alternative mobility solutions citywide, including bikes, e-bikes, e-
scooters, and other battery powered alternatives, to understand how people prefer to operate these
vehicles, identify safety concerns, and determine the best way to approach modifications to the City code
based on observation. The project could use video documentation, smart technology, and surveys of
residents and users of alternative transportation modes to gather this information regarding their use. As
an outcome of the demonstration project, recommendations would be made for code revisions to address
existing sections of the City code related to “toy” vehicles, electric bicycles, scooters, etc, and designate
appropriate places for the use of alternative transportation vehicles within the right-of-way. This
demonstration project review period should last for a specified period of time (12 to 18 months) and could
be geographically based to certain areas of the city. The demonstration project should also be coordinated
with the Secondary Wayfinding recommended in the Dublin Mobility Plan Phase III Report.
The geographic limits should be restricted so that the demonstration would generally operate on lower
speed roadways so there is less variation of speed between alternative transportation vehicles and other
motorized vehicles. Additionally, areas should include a good mix of residential and potential destinations
within these boundaries and within an appropriate range for alternative transportation vehicles in order to
attract usage.
Potential geographic areas of the city to include within the demonstration project include the Bridge Street
District, Historic Dublin, and the Frantz Road corridor. The Bridge Street District would be limited to the area
between Riverside Drive and Village Parkway, with alternative transportation vehicles allowed to cross
Riverside Drive to access The Dublin Link and connect to Historic Dublin but not allowed to travel on
Riverside Drive. Similarly, within Historic Dublin, alternative transportation vehicles would be allowed to
cross Bridge Street but not to travel along the curb to curb pavement for safety reasons. Within the Frantz
Road corridor, both the commercial area west of Frantz Road and the residential area connecting to Historic
Dublin east of Frantz Road would be included as the infrastructure in this area is most similar to the rest of
Dublin.
201902529 Page 30
Given that the Frantz Road corridor already has shared use path for much of its length, it is likely the existing
facilities will be adequate to meet the demand for alternative transportation vehicles in the corridor without
the impacts to drainage, existing utilities, existing street trees, and right-of-way that would result from the
build alternatives. With the lack of user demand, the costs and substantial impacts produced by the build
alternatives are not justified at the current time.
After alternative transportation vehicles are introduced to the corridor, we recommend the City to monitor
the results and reconsider the build alternatives in the future should issues arise with alternative
transportation vehicles utilizing the existing facilities or should demand warrant investment in dedicated
facilities.
12.2 Identification of Preliminary Preferred Alternative
The No-Build Alternative, with adjustments to City codes and regulations to allow alternative transportation
vehicles to use the existing infrastructure as discussed above, is recommended as the preferred alternative.
Additionally, further observation of how alternative transportation vehicles are used in the corridor and
throughout the City of Dublin should be performed to identify any necessary changes to City codes resulting
from how these vehicles are used once they are introduced to the corridor and throughout the City of Dublin.
The City should reconsidered the build alternatives in the future should issues arise with these vehicles using
the existing infrastructure or should demand in the corridor warrant dedicated infrastructure.
If the City reconsiders build alternatives in the future, information obtained from the demonstration project
should be utilized to further evaluate Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 in order to select a preferred build alternative.
Alternatives 5 and 6 should not be considered further due to safety concerns. Alternative 2 should not be
considered further due to considerable corridor impacts and cost.
201902529
Appendix A – Study Area Map
Study Area Map
N
201902529
Appendix B – Existing Conditions
N0
200
400
800 Ci
t
y of
Dubl
i
nCi
t
y of
Col
umbusTut
t
l
e RdFrantz Rd Tut
t
l
e Cr
ossi
ng Bl
vdBradenton AveCreek CtCramerRings RdFrantz Rd Bl
azer
PkwyMo
n
t
e
r
e
y Dr
Washington TownshipCity of DublinEdinburgh RdMetro Place NMetro Place SCorbin Mill
Dr
Frantz Rd
West Bridge StUpper Metro PlPost RdLongbranch DrDublin Corporate Area Plan Boundary
Legend
Dublin Corporate LimitExisting Shared Use Path
Existing Conditions
Frantz Road
Frantz Road Study Area
Existing Sidewalk
201902529
Appendix C – Alternative Comparison Matrix
Evaluation CriteriaSafetyAlternative transportation not currently allowed. No dedicated facilities.Alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized vehicles. Separated from peds and bicycles.Alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized vehicles. Separated from peds and bicycles.Path separated from motorized vehicles. Road crossings at X-walks. Alternative vehicles will cross driveways from both directions.Path separated from motorized vehicles, however adjacent to peds. Road crossings at X-walks.Bi-directional alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized vehicles.Bi-directional alternative transportation vehicles adjacent to motorized vehicles.Likely additional motorized vehicle crashes due to congestion.Traffic Capacity ImpactsNo impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impactsNo impactsRemoval of travel lane would result in capcaity failuresIntegration with other Transportation ModesAlternative transportation not currently allowed.Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane. Cars separated by markings.Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane. Cars separated by markings.Path shared with bicycles. Cars completely separate. Peds encouraged to use other side.Path shared with bicycles and peds. Peds separated by markings.Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane bi-directional lane. Cars separated by physical barriers.Alternative transportation vehicles in own lane bi-directional lane. Cars separated by physical barriers.Drainage ImpactsNo impacts No impacts anticipatedReplacement of all curb inlets. Possible culvert extensions and headwall modificationsPossible culvert extensions and headwall modificationsPossible culvert extensions and headwall modificationsNo impacts anticipated. No impacts anticipatedUtility ImpactsNo impacts No impacts anticipatedSignal/light pole relocations. Possible impact to underground utilities, including AEP transmission and water line.Possible minor impact to underground utilities within tree lawn areas and under path on one side of roadway.Possible minor impact to underground utilities within tree lawn areas and under path on both sides of roadway.No impacts anticipated No impacts anticipatedAesthetic/ Corridor ImpactsNo impactsReduced median width will impact large trees. Could be replaced with smaller vegetation that requires less space.No impact to median vegetation. Impact to small tree lawn trees that can be replaced.No impact to median vegetation. Impact to small tree lawn trees along one side that can be replaced.No impact to median vegetation. Impact to small tree lawn trees along both sides. Most can be replaced.Reduced median width will impact large trees. Could be replaced with smaller vegetation that requires less space.No impactsEase of Construction/ Maintenance of TrafficNo impactsFair amount of roadway work needed. Reduced construction timeframe due to avoidance of drainage/utilities. Long-term lane closures.Significant roadway and drainage work needed. Longer construction timeframe due to drainage/utility relocation. Long-term lane closures.No roadway work needed. Path along one side replaced.No roadway work needed. Paths along both sides replaced.Fair amount of roadway work needed. Reduced construction timeframe due to avoidance of drainage/utilities. Long-term lane closures. Roadway work limited to resurfacing and restriping. Reduced construction timeframe due to avoidance of drainage/utilities.Right-of-Way ImpactsNo impacts No impacts anticipated.Likely need for additional right-of-way/bikepath easements along both sides of roadway.Possible need for additional right-of-way/bikepath easements along one side of the roadway.Need for additional right-of-way/bikepath easements possible along one side and likely along the other side of the roadway.No impacts anticipated. No impacts anticipated.Construction CostNone $1,950,000 $5,380,000 $690,000 $1,300,000Cost not calculated. Cost not calculated.Legend:Very Good: Good: Fair: Poor:No BuildAlt 5 Alt 6Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
201902529
Appendix D – Alternative Typical Sections
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:03 AM1
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - EXISTING2.0'10.5'10.5'5.0'12.0'14.0'12.0'2.0'4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
4' TO 8'
VARIES
5' TO 11'
VARIES
0.5'0.5'
64.0'
73.0'
73.0'
64.0'
10.5'10.5'22.0'10.5'10.5'
0.5'0.5'
5.0'11.0'11.0'19.0'11.0'11.0'5.0'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
0.5'
0.5'0.5'
0.5'
(SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD)
FRANTZ RD EXISTNG SECTION
(SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD)
FRANTZ RD EXISTNG SECTION W/ TURN LANE
(NORTH OF RINGS ROAD)
FRANTZ RD EXISTNG SECTION
(NORTH OF RINGS ROAD)
FRANTZ RD EXISTNG SECTION W/ TURN LANE
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
2.0'4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'12.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'2.0'3' TO 17'
VARIES
8.0'
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'12.0'11.5'14.0'11.5'12.0'12.0'2.0'3' TO 17'
VARIES
8.0'
4' TO 8'
VARIES
5' TO 11'
VARIES
2.0'
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:03 AM2
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE #13' TO 17'
VARIES
8'
3' TO 17'
VARIES
8'
4' TO 8'
VARIES
5' TO 11'
VARIES
4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
4' TO 8'
VARIES
5' TO 11'
VARIES
4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
2.0'2.0'4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'
2.0'
2.0'
2.0'
2.0'2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'10.0'11.0'11.0'5.0'
64.0'
14.5'
*
73.0'
*
*
73.0'
*
4.5'5.5'
64.0'
*
8.0'8.0'
11.0'11.0'5.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'10.0'
5.0'11.0'11.0'8.0'11.0'11.0'11.0'5.0'
5.0'11.0'11.0'19.0'11.0'11.0'5.0'
0.5'0.5'
0.5'0.5'
5.5'5.5'
0.5'0.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #1
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #1
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
(SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD)FRANTZ RD EXISTNG SECTION W/ TURN LANE
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #1 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #1 W/ TURN LANE
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
*
**
**
**
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
8.0'
VARIES
VARIES 2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:04 AM3
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE #212.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #1 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #2
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #2 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #2
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #2 W/ TURN LANE
82.0'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
0.5'0.5'
79.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
0.5'0.5'
70.0'
0.5'0.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
0.5'0.5'
71.0'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
1.0'
5.0'12.0'
22.0'
14.0'
11.0'26.0'
1.0'
1.0'
1.0'
5.0'11.0'11.0'
11.5'
1.0'
1.0'
1.0'
1.0'
2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'4.0'
4.0'4.0'7.0'2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'
*
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
VARIES8.0'
VARIES8.0'
7.0'
8.0'
VARIES
VARIES 2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'
8.0'
VARIES
VARIES 2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'
4.0'
7.0'2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'
4.0'
7.0'2.0'
4.0'
7.0'2.0'5.0'11.0'
4.0'
7.0'2.0'5.0'11.0'11.0'
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:04 AM4
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE #34' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'
0.5'0.5'
64.0'
10.5'10.5'5.0'12.0'14.0'12.0'
*
*
73.0'
73.0'
12.0'11.5'14.0'11.5'12.0'12.0'
*
64.0'
10.5'10.5'22.0'10.5'10.5'
0.5'0.5'
*
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #3
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #3
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
0.5'
0.5'0.5'
0.5'
12.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #3 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #3 W/ TURN LANE
12.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
*
*
*
*2.0'
2.0'
2.0'
2.0'
10.0'VARIES
10.0'VARIES
10.0'7.0'
10.0'7.0'
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:05 AM5
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE #4| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
12.0'11.5'17.5'11.0'11.0'2.0'4.0'4.0'
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD(FRANTZ RD)ALTERNATIVE #3 W/ TURN LANE
0.5'0.5'
64.0'
10.5'10.5'5.0'12.0'14.0'12.0'
*
*
73.0'
73.0'
12.0'11.5'14.0'11.5'12.0'12.0'
*
64.0'
10.5'10.5'22.0'10.5'10.5'
0.5'0.5'
*
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #4
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #4
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
0.5'
0.5'0.5'
0.5'
12.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #4 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #4 W/ TURN LANE
2.0'
2.0'
2.0'
2.0'2.0'
2.0'
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
*
**
*2.0'
2.0'
*
*
*
*
VARIES5.0'5.0'
VARIES5.0'5.0'
5.0'5.0'7.0'
5.0'5.0'7.0'
5.0'5.0'7.0'
5.0'5.0'7.0'VARIES5.0'5.0'
VARIES5.0'5.0'
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:05 AM6
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE #53' TO 17'
VARIES
8'2'
3' TO 17'
VARIES
8'2'
4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 7'
VARIES
4' TO 5'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 5'
VARIES
0' TO 7'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 8'
VARIES
5' TO 11'
VARIES
2.0'
4' TO 8'
VARIES
5' TO 11'
VARIES
2.0'
64.0'
14.5'
LANE
TURN
LEFT
*
11.0'11.0'10.0'11.0'11.0'2.0'4.0'4.0'
**#
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
64.0'
*
13.0'
10.5'10.5'11.0'11.0'11.0'2.0'4.0'4.0'
**#
0.5'0.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
73.0'
*
*
10.5'
*#
#- STRIPING
0.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
73.0'
*
9.5'
*
12.0'6.0'11.0'11.0'11.0'2.0'4.0'4.0'12.0'
*#
0.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
0.5'
0.5'
12.0'11.5'17.5'11.0'11.0'2.0'4.0'4.0'
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
- STRIPING
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
#
- STRIPING
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
#
- STRIPING
TRANSPORTATION LANE
- ALTERNATIVE
#
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #5
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #5
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #5 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #5 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)ALTERNATIVE #4 W/ TURN LANE
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
TURN LANE
4.0'VARIES2.0'12.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'2.0'3' TO 17'
VARIES
8.0'
EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W`````O:\2019\02529\C. Design\12345_ProjDescription\Design\Roadway\Working Drawings\mro\Typical Sections.dgnjsoltesz8/17/202010:11:06 AM7
7 FRANTZ RDTYPICAL SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE #6(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #5 W/ TURN LANE
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
0.5'0.5'
64.0'
73.0'
73.0'
67.5'
0.5'0.5'
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
| CONST FRANTZ ROAD
0.5'
0.5'0.5'
0.5'
NORTH OF RINGS ROAD
SOUTH OF RINGS ROAD
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
**#
2.0'5.0'5.0'
**#
2.0'5.0'5.0'
**#
2.0'5.0'5.0'
**#
2.0'5.0'5.0'
10.5'10.5'22.0'10.5'
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #6 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #6
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #6 W/ TURN LANE
(FRANTZ RD)
ALTERNATIVE #6
2.0'VARIES4.0'
4.0'VARIES2.0'
1.5'4.0'VARIES2.0'10.5'10.5'5.0'12.0'14.0'12.0'2.0'VARIES4.0'5.0'
4.0'VARIES2.0'12.0'11.5'26.0'11.5'12.0'2.0'3' TO 17'
VARIES
8.0'
4.0'VARIES2.0'12.0'11.5'14.0'11.5'12.0'12.0'2.0'3' TO 17'
VARIES
8.0'
201902529
Appendix E – Alternative Layouts
0 40
20 80 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 1 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdTuttle Crossing BlvdTuttle RdParkcenter AveBr
a
d
e
nt
o
n Av
e
Bradenton AveLee Esposito AccocLee Esposito Accoc
Office ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
Cincinnati BellCincinnati Bell
Dominion HomesDominion Homes
American Cancer SocietyAmerican Cancer Society
Ohio Sleep Medicine InstituteOhio Sleep Medicine Institute
Dublin Family VisionDublin Family Vision
Dejong and AssociatesDejong and Associates
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Fanning Howey and AssociatesFanning Howey and Associates
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next Sheet
N0 40
20 80
Alternative 1
Improvements
Frantz Road
Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdCramer Creek CtRi
ngs RdRings RdBl
azer
PkwyOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Mat
ch Li
ne
-
See Next
Sheet
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Previous SheetLongbranch Dr
40
80
0
20 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 1 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendEdinburgh RdMetro Place SF
ran
tz
Rd
Frantz Rd
Monterey DrMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetMatch Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous Sheet
N40
80
0
20
Improvements
Frantz Road
Alternative 1 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendPost RdFrantz Rd Upper Metro PlMetro Place NCorbin Mill DrBy Hilton
Home 2
By Hilton
Home 2
Chase BankChase Bank
Shopping CenterShopping Center
Hyde ParkHyde Park
Marriot
Residence Inn
Marriot
Residence Inn
US BankUS Bank
Huntington BankHuntington Bank
Frazier FinancialFrazier Financial
West Bridge StShopping CenterShopping Center
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous SheetMatch Line - See Below
0 40
20 80 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 2 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdTuttle Crossing BlvdTuttle RdParkcenter AveBr
a
d
e
nt
o
n Av
e
Lee Esposito AccocLee Esposito Accoc
Office ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
Cincinnati BellCincinnati Bell
Dominion HomesDominion Homes
American Cancer SocietyAmerican Cancer Society
Ohio Sleep Medicine InstituteOhio Sleep Medicine Institute
Dublin Family VisionDublin Family Vision
Dejong and AssociatesDejong and Associates
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Fanning Howey and AssociatesFanning Howey and Associates
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetBradenton Ave
N0 40
20 80
Alternative 2
Improvements
Frantz Road
Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdCramer Creek CtRi
ngs RdRings RdBl
azer
PkwyOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Mat
ch Li
ne
-
See Next
Sheet
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Previous SheetLongbranch Dr
40
80
0
20 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 2 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendEdinburgh RdMetro Place SF
ran
tz
Rd
Frantz Rd
Monterey DrMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetMatch Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous Sheet
N40
80
0
20
Improvements
Frantz Road
Alternative 2 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendPost RdFrantz Rd Upper Metro PlMetro Place NCorbin Mill DrBy Hilton
Home 2
By Hilton
Home 2
Chase BankChase Bank
Shopping CenterShopping Center
Hyde ParkHyde Park
Marriot
Residence Inn
Marriot
Residence Inn
US BankUS Bank
Huntington BankHuntington Bank
Frazier FinancialFrazier Financial
West Bridge StShopping CenterShopping Center
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous SheetMatch Line - See Below
0 40
20 80 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 3 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdTuttle Crossing BlvdTuttle RdParkcenter AveBr
a
d
e
nt
o
n Av
e
Lee Esposito AccocLee Esposito Accoc
Office ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
Cincinnati BellCincinnati Bell
Dominion HomesDominion Homes
American Cancer SocietyAmerican Cancer Society
Ohio Sleep Medicine InstituteOhio Sleep Medicine Institute
Dublin Family VisionDublin Family Vision
Dejong and AssociatesDejong and Associates
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Fanning Howey and AssociatesFanning Howey and Associates
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetBradenton Ave
N0 40
20 80
Alternative 3
Improvements
Frantz Road
Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdCramer Creek CtRi
ngs RdRings RdBl
azer
PkwyOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Mat
ch Li
ne
-
See Next
Sheet
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Previous SheetLongbranch DrLongbranch Dr
40
80
0
20 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 3 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendEdinburgh RdMetro Place SF
ran
tz
Rd
Frantz Rd
Monterey DrMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetMatch Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous Sheet
N40
80
0
20
Improvements
Frantz Road
Alternative 3 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendPost RdFrantz Rd Upper Metro PlMetro Place NCorbin Mill DrBy Hilton
Home 2
By Hilton
Home 2
Chase BankChase Bank
Shopping CenterShopping Center
Hyde ParkHyde Park
Marriot
Residence Inn
Marriot
Residence Inn
US BankUS Bank
Huntington BankHuntington Bank
Frazier FinancialFrazier Financial
West Bridge StShopping CenterShopping Center
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous SheetMatch Line - See Below
0 40
20 80 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 4 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdTuttle Crossing BlvdTuttle RdParkcenter AveBr
a
d
e
nt
o
n Av
e
Lee Esposito AccocLee Esposito Accoc
Office ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
Cincinnati BellCincinnati Bell
Dominion HomesDominion Homes
American Cancer SocietyAmerican Cancer Society
Ohio Sleep Medicine InstituteOhio Sleep Medicine Institute
Dublin Family VisionDublin Family Vision
Dejong and AssociatesDejong and Associates
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Fanning Howey and AssociatesFanning Howey and Associates
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetBradenton Ave
N0 40
20 80
Alternative 4
Improvements
Frantz Road
Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
Legend
Frantz RdCramer Creek CtRi
ngs RdRings RdBl
azer
PkwyBranch DrOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice Park
Office ParkOffice Park
DNV of ColumbusDNV of Columbus
Mat
ch Li
ne
-
See Next
Sheet
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Previous Sheet
40
80
0
20 NImprovements
Frantz Road
Alternative 4 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendEdinburgh RdMetro Place SF
ran
tz
Rd
Frantz Rd
Monterey DrMatch Line - See BelowMatch Line - See Next SheetMatch Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous Sheet
N40
80
0
20
Improvements
Frantz Road
Alternative 4 Transportation Lane
Proposed Alternative
LegendPost RdFrantz Rd Upper Metro PlMetro Place NCorbin Mill DrBy Hilton
Home 2
By Hilton
Home 2
Chase BankChase Bank
Shopping CenterShopping Center
Hyde ParkHyde Park
Marriot
Residence Inn
Marriot
Residence Inn
US BankUS Bank
Huntington BankHuntington Bank
Frazier FinancialFrazier Financial
West Bridge StShopping CenterShopping Center
Match Line - See AboveMatch Line - See Previous SheetMatch Line - See Below
201902529
Appendix F – Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
ROADWAY
Clearing and Grubbing 201 1 Lump $3,000.00 $3,000
Straight Curb Removed 202 13,145 Lin. Ft.$8.00 $105,160
Pavement Removed 202 405 Sq. Yd.$12.00 $4,860
Median Removed 202 685 Sq. Yd.$20.00 $13,700
Excavation 203 1,000 Cu. Yd.$13.00 $13,000
Embankment 203 1,000 Cu. Yd.$10.00 $10,000
Subgrade Compaction 204 7,430 Sq. Yd.$2.50 $18,575
Proof Rolling 204 4 Hour $200.00 $800
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $169,095
EROSION CONTROL
Seeding & Mulching 659 6,550 Sq. Yd.$2.00 $13,100
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 832 1 Lump $7,000.00 $7,000
Erosion Control 832 20,000 Each $1.00 $20,000
EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL $40,100
DRAINAGE
None Anticipated 611 0 Lin. Ft. $150.00 $0
DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $0
PAVEMENT
Pavement Planing - 1.25"254 52,270 Sq. Yd.$5.00 $261,350
Asphalt Concrete Base Course - 6"301 1,130 Cu. Yd.$140.00 $158,200
Aggregate Base - 6"304 1,240 Cu. Yd.$45.00 $55,800
Tack Coat 407 3,955 Gal $6.00 $23,730
Asphalt Concrete Surface Course - 1.25"448 2,050 Cu. Yd.$190.00 $389,500
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course - 1.75"448 330 Cu. Yd.$150.00 $49,500
Straight Curb 609 10,355 Lin. Ft.$12.00 $124,260
PAVEMENT SUBTOTAL $1,062,340
WATER WORK
None Anticipated 638 1 Lump $0.00 $0
WATER WORK SUBTOTAL $0
SANITARY SEWER
None Anticipated 611 1 Lump $0.00 $0
SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL $0
LIGHTING
None Anticipated 625 1 Lump $0.00 $0
LIGHTING SUBTOTAL $0
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Signing 630 1 Lump $15,000.00 $15,000
Pavement Markings Incidentals 644 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
Center Line 644 0.18 Mile $5,000.00 $900
Channelizing Line 644 19,050 Lin. Ft.$1.50 $28,575
Crosswalk Line 644 1,680 Lin. Ft.$3.00 $5,040
Dotted Line 644 485 Lin. Ft.$1.50 $728
Edge Line 644 2.25 Mile $3,500.00 $7,875
Lane Line 644 2.65 Mile $2,000.00 $5,300
Stop Line 644 505 Lin. Ft.$15.00 $7,575
Signal Modification 632 5 Each $2,500.00 $12,500
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL $88,493
LANDSCAPING
Median Landscaping 661 1 Lump $20,000.00 $20,000
LANDSCAPING SUBTOTAL $20,000
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
See Incidentals 614 1 Lump $0.00 $0
MAINTAINING TRAFFIC SUBTOTAL $0
Subtotal SUBTOTAL $1,380,028
30% Contingency $414,008
Total Construction Cost $1,794,036
Maintaining Traffic (5% of Total Construction Cost)1 Lump $89,702 $89,701.79
Field Office, Type B 619 4 Month $1,800 $7,200
Construction Layout Stakes (0.75% of Total Construction Cost) 623 1 Lump $13,455 $13,455
Mobilization (Per ODOT CMS)624 1 Lump $40,000 $40,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,950,000
This estimated does not include Right-of-Way or utility relocation costs
This estimate represents our Professional Opinion of the Probable Project Construction Cost.
The estimate is taken from the historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin.
For items where historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin was not available, other similar bid data sources were used to determine costs.
TOTAL $
In providing estimates of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or
over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's
professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty, express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the
Consultant's opinion of the probable construction cost.
Frantz Road - Alternative 1
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT $/UNIT
ROADWAY
Clearing and Grubbing 201 1 Lump $10,000.00 $10,000
Curb & Gutter Removed 202 15,705 Lin. Ft.$9.00 $141,345
Pavement Removed 202 1,750 Sq. Yd.$12.00 $21,000
Pavement Removed - Shared Use Path 202 4,310 Sq. Yd.$12.00 $51,720
Walk Removed 202 17,745 Sq. Ft.$3.00 $53,235
Excavation 203 2,000 Cu. Yd.$13.00 $26,000
Embankment 203 2,000 Cu. Yd.$10.00 $20,000
Subgrade Compaction 204 18,822 Sq. Yd.$2.50 $47,055
Proof Rolling 204 8 Hour $200.00 $1,600
Concrete Walk 608 36,534 Sq. Ft.$5.00 $182,670
Detectable Warning 608 9 Each $50.00 $450
Curb Ramp 608 31 Each $400.00 $12,400
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $567,475
EROSION CONTROL
Seeding & Mulching 659 9,070 Sq. Yd.$2.00 $18,140
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 832 1 Lump $10,000.00 $10,000
Erosion Control 832 25,000 Each $1.00 $25,000
EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL $53,140
DRAINAGE
Drainage and Underdrain 611 7,500 Lin. Ft. $150.00 $1,125,000
Culvert and Headwall Modifications 611 1 Lump $100,000.00 $100,000
DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $1,225,000
PAVEMENT
Pavement Planing - 1.25"254 55,115 Sq. Yd.$5.00 $275,575
Asphalt Concrete Base Course - 6"301 2,010 Cu. Yd.$140.00 $281,400
Asphalt Concrete Base Course - 3"301 395 Cu. Yd.$140.00 $55,300
Aggregate Base - 4"304 455 Cu. Yd.$45.00 $20,475
Aggregate Base - 6" - Roadway 304 2,215 Cu. Yd.$45.00 $99,675
Aggregate Base - 6" - Shared Use Path 304 860 Cu. Yd.$45.00 $38,700
Tack Coat 407 4,570 Gal $6.00 $27,420
Asphalt Concrete Surface Course - 1.25"448 2,225 Cu. Yd.$190.00 $422,750
1.50" Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1, (Medium Traffic), pg64-22 448 180 Cu. Yd.$225.00 $40,500
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course - 1.75"448 590 Cu. Yd.$150.00 $88,500
Curb & Gutter 609 15,705 Lin. Ft.$20.00 $314,100
PAVEMENT SUBTOTAL $1,664,395
WATER WORK
Hydrant Relocation 638 12 Each $3,000.00 $36,000
Misc. Water Line Relocations 638 1 Lump $20,000.00 $20,000
WATER WORK SUBTOTAL $56,000
SANITARY SEWER
Manhole Adjusted to Grade 611 2 Each $750.00 $1,500
SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL $1,500
LIGHTING
Misc. Lighting Relocations 625 1 Lump $50,000.00 $50,000
LIGHTING SUBTOTAL $50,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Signing 630 1 Lump $25,000.00 $25,000
Pavement Markings Incidentals 644 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
Center Line 644 0.03 Mile $5,000.00 $150
Channelizing Line 644 7,055 Lin. Ft.$1.50 $10,583
Crosswalk Line 644 1,680 Lin. Ft.$3.00 $5,040
Dotted Line 644 500 Lin. Ft.$1.50 $750
Edge Line 644 2.50 Mile $3,500.00 $8,750
Lane Line 644 2.75 Mile $2,000.00 $5,500
Stop Line 644 730 Lin. Ft.$15.00 $10,950
Signal Modification 632 5 Each $10,000.00 $50,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL $121,723
LANDSCAPING
Tree Lawn Landscaping 661 1 Lump $10,000.00 $10,000
LANDSCAPING SUBTOTAL $10,000
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
See Incidentals 614 1 Lump $0.00 $0
MAINTAINING TRAFFIC SUBTOTAL $0
Subtotal SUBTOTAL $3,749,233
30% Contingency $1,124,770
Total Construction Cost $4,874,002
Maintaining Traffic (5% of Total Construction Cost)1 Lump $243,700 $243,700.11
Field Office, Type B 619 9 Month $1,800 $16,200
Construction Layout Stakes (0.75% of Total Construction Cost) 623 1 Lump $36,555 $36,555.02
Mobilization (Per ODOT CMS)624 1 Lump $200,000 $200,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,380,000
This estimated does not include Right-of-Way or utility relocation costs
This estimate represents our Professional Opinion of the Probable Project Construction Cost.
The estimate is taken from the historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin.
For items where historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin was not available, other similar bid data sources were used to determine costs.
TOTAL $
In providing estimates of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or
over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's
professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty, express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the
Consultant's opinion of the probable construction cost.
Frantz Road - Alternative 2
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT $/UNIT
ROADWAY
Clearing and Grubbing 201 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
Pavement Removed - Shared Use Path 202 4,940 Sq. Yd.$12.00 $59,280
Walk Removed 202 7,350 Sq. Ft.$3.00 $22,050
Excavation 203 250 Cu. Yd.$13.00 $3,250
Embankment 203 250 Cu. Yd.$10.00 $2,500
Subgrade Compaction 204 9,220 Sq. Yd.$2.50 $23,050
Detectable Warning 608 10 Each $50.00 $500
Curb Ramp 608 25 Each $400.00 $10,000
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $125,630
EROSION CONTROL
Seeding & Mulching 659 6,140 Sq. Yd.$2.00 $12,280
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 832 1 Lump $7,000.00 $7,000
Erosion Control 832 20,000 Each $1.00 $20,000
EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL $39,280
DRAINAGE
Manhole Adjusted to Grade 605 3 Each $750.00 $2,250
Culvert and Headwall Modifications 611 1 Lump $50,000.00 $50,000
DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $52,250
PAVEMENT
Asphalt Concrete Base Course - 3"301 705 Cu. Yd.$140.00 $98,700
Aggregate Base - 6" - Shared Use Path 304 1,540 Cu. Yd.$45.00 $69,300
1.50" Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1, (Medium Traffic), pg64-22 448 320 Cu. Yd.$225.00 $72,000
PAVEMENT SUBTOTAL $240,000
WATER WORK
None Anticipated 638 1 Each $0.00 $0
WATER WORK SUBTOTAL $0
SANITARY SEWER
Manhole Adjusted to Grade 611 1 Each $750.00 $750
SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL $750
LIGHTING
None Anticipated 625 1 Lump $0.00 $0
LIGHTING SUBTOTAL $0
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Signing 630 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
Pavement Markings Incidentals 644 1 Lump $2,000.00 $2,000
Center Line 644 1.35 Mile $5,000.00 $6,750
Pull Box Adjusted to Grade 632 7 Each $250.00 $1,750
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL $15,500
LANDSCAPING
Tree Lawn Landscaping 661 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
LANDSCAPING SUBTOTAL $5,000
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
See Incidentals 614 1 Lump $0.00 $0
MAINTAINING TRAFFIC SUBTOTAL $0
Subtotal SUBTOTAL $478,410
30% Contingency $143,523
Total Construction Cost $621,933
Maintaining Traffic (3% of Total Construction Cost)1 Lump $18,658 $18,657.99
Field Office, Type B 619 2 Month $1,800 $3,600
Construction Layout Stakes (0.75% of Total Construction Cost) 623 1 Lump $4,664 $4,664.50
Mobilization (Per ODOT CMS)624 1 Lump $40,000 $40,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $690,000
This estimated does not include Right-of-Way or utility relocation costs
This estimate represents our Professional Opinion of the Probable Project Construction Cost.
The estimate is taken from the historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin.
For items where historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin was not available, other similar bid data sources were used to determine costs.
TOTAL $
In providing estimates of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or
over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's
professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty, express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the
Consultant's opinion of the probable construction cost.
Frantz Road - Alternative 3
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT $/UNIT
ROADWAY
Clearing and Grubbing 201 1 Lump $7,500.00 $7,500
Pavement Removed - Shared Use Path 202 4,940 Sq. Yd.$12.00 $59,280
Walk Removed 202 37,575 Sq. Ft.$3.00 $112,725
Excavation 203 300 Cu. Yd.$13.00 $3,900
Embankment 203 300 Cu. Yd.$10.00 $3,000
Subgrade Compaction 204 18,675 Sq. Yd.$2.50 $46,688
Detectable Warning 608 22 Each $50.00 $1,100
Curb Ramp 608 46 Each $400.00 $18,400
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $252,593
EROSION CONTROL
Seeding & Mulching 659 8,240 Sq. Yd.$2.00 $16,480
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 832 1 Lump $10,000.00 $10,000
Erosion Control 832 25,000 Each $1.00 $25,000
EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL $51,480
DRAINAGE
Manhole Adjusted to Grade 605 10 Each $750.00 $7,500
Culvert and Headwall Modifications 611 1 Lump $75,000.00 $75,000
DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $82,500
PAVEMENT
Asphalt Concrete Base Course - 3"301 1,430 Cu. Yd.$140.00 $200,200
Aggregate Base - 6" - Shared Use Path 304 3,115 Cu. Yd.$45.00 $140,175
1.50" Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1, (Medium Traffic), pg64-22 448 650 Cu. Yd.$225.00 $146,250
PAVEMENT SUBTOTAL $486,625
WATER WORK
None Anticipated 638 1 Each $0.00 $0
WATER WORK SUBTOTAL $0
SANITARY SEWER
Manhole Adjusted to Grade 611 1 Each $750.00 $750
SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL $750
LIGHTING
Misc. Lighting Relocations 625 1 Lump $25,000.00 $25,000
LIGHTING SUBTOTAL $25,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Signing 630 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
Pavement Markings Incidentals 644 1 Lump $2,000.00 $2,000
Center Line 644 2.70 Mile $5,000.00 $13,500
Pull Box Adjusted to Grade 632 10 Each $250.00 $2,500
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL $23,000
LANDSCAPING
Tree Lawn Landscaping 661 1 Lump $5,000.00 $5,000
LANDSCAPING SUBTOTAL $5,000
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
See Incidentals 614 1 Lump $0.00 $0
MAINTAINING TRAFFIC SUBTOTAL $0
Subtotal SUBTOTAL $926,948
30% Contingency $278,084
Total Construction Cost $1,205,032
Maintaining Traffic (3% of Total Construction Cost)1 Lump $36,151 $36,151
Field Office, Type B 619 3 Month $1,800 $5,400
Construction Layout Stakes (0.75% of Total Construction Cost) 623 1 Lump $9,038 $9,038
Mobilization (Per ODOT CMS)624 1 Lump $40,000 $40,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,300,000
This estimated does not include Right-of-Way or utility relocation costs
This estimate represents our Professional Opinion of the Probable Project Construction Cost.
The estimate is taken from the historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin.
For items where historical bid data provided by the City of Dublin was not available, other similar bid data sources were used to determine costs.
TOTAL $
In providing estimates of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Consultant has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or
over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Consultant's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's
professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty, express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from the
Consultant's opinion of the probable construction cost.
Frantz Road - Alternative 4
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DESCRIPTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT $/UNIT
201902529
Appendix G – Community Benchmarking Data
Alternative Transportation Lane Study
Tom Hibbard spoke to David Littlejohn with the Camel, IN Engineering Department on February
11, 2020.
1. Does your community currently have app-based electric scooters offered (eg Lime, Bird,
etc.) with the City limits?
Electric scooters are not in Carmel, but they are in neighboring Indianapolis and wander
in occasionally. Zagster operates a docking station based bike share program in the
City. In the past, Zagster has offered to set up an electric scooter network in the City if
contracted and would manage the program for them. So far, the City has not acted on
this idea.
The City has seen more personally owned electric scooters showing up in recent years.
2. What rules/regulations are in place for low speed transportation vehicles – eg. Electric
scooters, e-bikes, etc?
There are no specific rules or any recent rule changes made – see next response.
3. Are these types of vehicles permitted along streets, sidewalks, bike paths or bike lanes?
Multi-use paths and greenways (including the Monon Trail) prohibit motorized vehicles.
So far, Carmel has interpreted this to mean combustion motor vehicles and there hasn’t
been an effort to prohibit electric motor scooters or e-bikes. There is a speed limit on the
trail which has to be obeyed. Scooters are governed to a speed of 15 mph and could be
adjusted slower if the City were to contract with a service and think this is necessary.
The speeds could even be controlled in certain areas using geo-fencing. David noted
that Carmel’s interpretation to the permission to use scooters on the Monon Trail is not
the same as other communities where the trail goes – Indianapolis, for instance, does
not permit them.
Scooters are permitted in the streets.
4. Has the City revised or developed new roadway design standards to accommodate
these modes of transportation?
No. David did note that Kansas City did a pilot program for micro mobility lanes last
year.
5. What is the public perception/support for these transportation alternatives in your
community?
Not much of a huge demand for them. No organized or broad opposition to them. He
noted there has been an interest from high school students – he has been interviewed
by the high school newspaper about them. He suspects the City council would likely be
divided.
6. Were these types of transportation alternatives previously available in your community?
If so, what was the experience like in terms public support, safety, regulation?
No.
7. Is the community serviced by a fixed route transit service? If so, do alternative
transportation modes serve to provide first mile/last mile access to transit stops?
No, not fixed route.
Alternative Transportation Lane Study
Tom Hibbard spoke to Nick Jarrell with the Fort Wayne, IN Public Works Department on
February 10, 2020.
1. Does your community currently have app-based electric scooters offered (eg Lime, Bird,
etc.) with the City limits?
In order to be proactive and pre-empt scooters being deployed in the City before rules
could be in place, Ft. Wayne sought out app based providers for interest in submitting to
be considered for a 2 year pilot program. A contract would be put in place with a single
provider for this period. The City ultimately selected VeoRide to provide the pilot
program service. They were selected after considering that they offered both bikes and
scooters, ADA compliance and other considerations. The contract is well into the
second year and will expire in the fall of 2020. Nick thought the program has worked
well and has been well received by the community. It currently operates only within a
mile of downtown based on the pilot requirements. Geofencing is used to restrict areas
where they are not permitted to operate within this zone (eg parks, parking garages,
etc.). Another of their requirements was that a local representative must be in the city to
provide services (eg retrieving a scooter) within 2 hours upon being contacted. If they
do not respond within this time, the City retrieves it and charges $30 to the VeoRide.
Free rides are provided to disadvantaged users.
The City charged VeoRide $100 to be in the pilot program, $2,000 to get the permit and
then $2 per bike or scooter. VeoRide makes and operates the scooters, which are well
build and the most robust of the ones Ft. Wayne considered.
2. What rules/regulations are in place for low speed transportation vehicles – eg. Electric
scooters, e-bikes, etc?
Electric app-based scooters are only permitted to VeoRide under their contract. There
are no restrictions on the use of personally owned electric scooters or bikes.
3. Are these types of vehicles permitted along streets, sidewalks, bike paths or bike lanes?
Electric scooters are permitted on sidewalks and multi-use paths, but not in the street
since they do not have a combustion motor. There is a 15 mph speed limit, which is
enforced by their bike patrol who can write tickets.
4. What is the public perception/support for these transportation alternatives in your
community?
The feedback the City has received on the pilot program has been positive. They initially
had some issues with vandalism to the scooters but VeoRide reinforced components
that were being damaged in order to reduce this problem. Not sure if the damage was
by those opposed to the scooters or just general vandalism.
5. Were these types of transportation alternatives previously available in your community?
If so, what was the experience like in terms public support, safety, regulation?
No…the pilot program was initiated before these types of vehicles were deployed.
6. Is the community serviced by a fixed route transit service? If so, do alternative
transportation modes serve to provide first mile/last mile access to transit stops?
Yes. Fort Wayne Citilink. It doesn’t appear so based on the data the City has
collected….47,000 rides were counted from the beginning of September to end of
December 2019 for 18,000 users. The average length of ride is 17 minutes. The
heaviest use occurs from Friday night through early Sunday morning (around midnight).
There is another peak that occurs during mid-day on Sundays.
Alternative Transportation Lane Study
Kansas City, Missouri - Summary of “Scooter and eBike Pilot Program” launched May 9, 2019.
https://www.kcmo.gov/programs-initiatives/scooters-and-ebikes. Also includes e-mail
conversation with Eric Vaughan from BikeWalkKC (non-profit advocacy/education group
implementing RideKC).
1. Does your community currently have app-based electric scooters offered (eg Lime, Bird,
etc.) with the City limits?
On May 9, 2019, Kansas City welcomed Bird, Spin and RideKC Bike & RideKC Scooter
into a yearlong scooter and e-bike pilot program. The City created the scooter and e-bike
pilot as an innovative way to provide additional modes of transportation for residents and
visitors while also providing data and other information to City staff.
2. What rules/regulations are in place for low speed transportation vehicles – eg. Electric
scooters, e-bikes, etc?
Electric scooters and e-bikes generally follow the same rules/regulations of foot-powered
bicycles.
“Very little regulation in the vendor operating agreement and no enforcement measures
in place.” – Eric Vaughan
Data collected during/from the pilot program will be analyzed to help determine what, if
any, revisions to city code might be considered.
Electric-assisted bicycle: “Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts. Is
incapable of propelling the bicycle at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour.”
Foot scooter: “…may be equipped with an electric motor that is capable of being
propelled at a speed of no more than 20 miles per hour.”
3. Are these types of vehicles permitted along streets, sidewalks, bike paths or bike lanes?
Scooters: People should ride in the streets, or in bike lanes where available. Do not ride
on sidewalks. Riding a scooter (classified as a motorized vehicle) on a sidewalk is in
violation of KCMO ordinance 70-253: No person shall drive any vehicle other than by
human power upon a sidewalk, sidewalk area, park or public property, except upon a
permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.
New facilities, such as protected bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, shared use trails, are
being implemented as part of the Bike KC Master Plan
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U9Bdz-xaNzXBN-MDH0QTlIR624cVlF33/view ).
“Permitted basically anywhere except sidewalks, although they get ridden even in
restricted zones without penalty.” – Eric Vaughan
4. What is the public perception/support for these transportation alternatives in your
community?
Public meeting results related to facility types were included in the Bike KC Master Plan.
Although meeting was not specifically related to micro-mobility, bike users are viewed as
a similar population. In general, bike users preferred to ride in bike lanes along traffic as
opposed to on a shared use trail.
5. Were these types of transportation alternatives previously available in your community?
If so, what was the experience like in terms public support, safety, regulation?
The pilot program was introduced to the existing infrastructure without making
improvements first. The pilot program is being used to gauge how motorized units best
fit into the existing transportation system.
“KC has had bike hare since 2012 as a non-profit program. Electric bikes and scooters
were added to the RideKC program early last year.” – Eric Vaughan
6. Is the community serviced by a fixed route transit service? If so, do alternative
transportation modes serve to provide first mile/last mile access to transit stops?
Yes. Bus system and streetcars through RideKC.
“64% of RideKC Bike and Scooter trips start or end in proximity to a transit stop.” – Eric
Vaughan
7. Additional information:
Ridership information from the companies will help us prioritize where we need to build
more infrastructure and understand the impacts of scooters and e-bikes on existing
infrastructure.
“Our current pilot program is not something that I would recommend to other cities at this
time. It does not build in any accountability for vendors and we have seen regular
problems with operators due to that. For-profit vendors regularly violate their agreement
by blocking the public right of way or skirt their equity requirements despite the City
continually requesting improvements. RideKC Bike and Scooter is the only vendor that is
aligned with the transit system and offers true first and last mile operations along fixed
route services. 64% of RideKC Bike and Scooter trips start or end in proximity to a
transit stop. The other vendors primarily focus on heavy density and tourist zones of the
City. Any pilot you consider should have heavy enforcement, compliance, and data
collection components, as the for-profit companies have a long history of cutting corners
and violating their operating agreements.” – Eric Vaughan
Alternative Transportation Lane Study
Atlanta, GA - Summary of information compiled from micro-mobility studies, public meetings,
regulation updates, etc.
1. Does your community currently have app-based electric scooters offered (eg Lime, Bird,
etc.) with the City limits?
Yes, Permitted Shareable Dockless Mobility Devices and Operators as of 7/2/2019:
Operator # of Permitted Devices
Bird 2,000
Boaz 200
Bolt 1,000
Gotcha 500
Jump 2,000
Lime 2,000
Lyft 2,000
Spin 2,000
Wheels 1,000
2. What rules/regulations are in place for low speed transportation vehicles – eg. Electric
scooters, e-bikes, etc?
https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/shareable-dockless-mobility-devices
There is currently a Nighttime Riding Restriction for scooters/e-bikes that are permitted
through the City’s Shareable Dockless Mobility Device (SDMD) Permit and rented
through an App. No devices may be rented from 9:00PM-4:00AM. Relay Bikeshare and
personal bikes, scooters, e-bikes, or any other personally owned device are NOT
affected by the nighttime no-ride zone. You may continue to ride at any time.
What if I have my own e-scooter or e-bike? Great! We applaud your use of this non-car
mode of transportation. You still need to follow all the rules regulating riding and parking
these devices.
The Atlanta Police Department will monitor and enforce appropriate riding behavior.
3. Are these types of vehicles permitted along streets, sidewalks, bike paths or bike lanes?
https://www.midtownatl.com/about/news-center/post/new-escooter-regulations-in-
atlanta-explained
No riding on sidewalks. Yield to pedestrians. Scooters are allowed on shared use
pathways. Like cars and bikes, you must yield to pedestrians at crosswalks.
Keep it under 15 mph. The scooters themselves are limited to 15 mph speeds.
Do ride where bikes are allowed: bike lanes, on shared use paths including, on the street
– in the rightmost lane
Ordinance 18-O-1322:
- SDMDs shall not be considered motorized vehicles as set forth in Chapter 110,
Article III
- SDMDs shall not be operated on sidewalks. SDMDs may operate in vehicle travel
lanes, in bike lanes, and along shared use paths throughout the City.
4. What is the public perception/support for these transportation alternatives in your
community?
2019 Atlanta E-Scooter survey results
(https://www.atlantaga.gov/home/showdocument?id=45981 and attached):
Which changes are most critical to making e-scooters successful in Atlanta?
Population that have ridden e-scooters: 78% - build more safe places to ride
5. Were these types of transportation alternatives previously available in your community?
If so, what was the experience like in terms public support, safety, regulation?
N/A
6. Is the community serviced by a fixed route transit service? If so, do alternative
transportation modes serve to provide first mile/last mile access to transit stops?
Yes, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). MARTA runs fixed-route
buses and small rail. Access to dockless mobility devices are generally located nearby
most MARTA bus or rail stops.
1
E-SCOOTER
SURVEY
ATLANTA
2019 RESULTS
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Big Picture
page 3
Everyone Agrees that Changes are Needed
page 4
Who is Riding E-scooters in Atlanta?
page 6
How do Perspectives on E-scooters Differ?
page 8
How are People Using E-scooters?
page 10
Frequent vs. Casual Riders
page 2
Respondent Profiles
page 16
Respondent Demographics
page 18
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
@cityofatlantaga
@ATLplanning
@ATLDOT
@ATLcitystudio
3
THE BIG PICTURE
Between November 18th and December 8th, 2019,
the Atlanta E-Scooter Survey collected feedback
from 2,640 people about the use and opinions of
e-scooters in Atlanta.
The results showed support for continuing the
e-scooter program while also emphasizing the
many opportunities for improvement. The results
of this survey were used in conjunction with the
feedback we received over the last year and
extensive research into other cities’ best practices
to inform changes to our e-scooter permit program
in 2020 and beyond.
Most respondents supported the use of e-scooters
as a transportation option in Atlanta. Over half
of respondents had previously ridden an e-scooter,
and even more were interested in trying one out.
2019 ATLANTA E-SCOOTER SURVEY RESULTS
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY IT
NO, BUT I WANT TO TRY IT
YES
56%
33%
11%
HAVE YOU RIDDEN AN
E-SCOOTER IN ATLANTA?
SHOULD E-SCOOTERS BE A
MOBILITY OPTION FOR ATLANTA?
ESCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR ATLANTANS.
THE CURRENT ESCOOTER SYSTEM SERVES ATLANTA’S NEEDS WELL.
ESCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR ATLANTANS.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT ESCOOTER SYSTEM NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
ESCOOTERS SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION FOR ATLANTANS.
18%
18%63%
ESCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR ATLANTANS.
THE CURRENT ESCOOTER SYSTEM SERVES ATLANTA’S NEEDS WELL.
ESCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR ATLANTANS.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT ESCOOTER SYSTEM NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
ESCOOTERS SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION FOR ATLANTANS.
18%
18%63%
81% OF
RESPONDENTS
SUPPORT
E-SCOOTERS
AS AN OPTION
4
EVERYONE AGREES THAT
CHANGES ARE NEEDED.
Many respondents gave similar feedback for the needed
changes to Atlanta’s e-scooter program. The most common
request was that we build safer places to ride.
Other common changes to improve behavior were
creating designated parking and improving educational
programming.
A decrease in the number of companies and scooters was
stated as a critical regulatory improvement, especially from
respondents who have not ridden scooters. Other critical
regulatory improvements identified in the survey, especially
from respondents who have ridden scooters, included
establishing larger and more equitable service areas and
increased maintenance requirements of e-scooters.WHICH CHANGES ARE MOST CRITICAL
TO MAKING ESCOOTERS SUCCESSFUL IN ATLANTA?
(SELECT UP TO 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 HAVE NOT RIDDENHAVE RIDDENALL
NO
CHANGES
ARE NEEDED
IMPROVE
DRIVER
EDUCATION
IMPROVE
PARKING
COMPLIANCE
INCREASE
POLICE
ENFORCEMENT
IMPROVE
ESCOOTER
RIDER EDUCATION
CREATE DESIGNATED
PARKING AREAS
WITH SIGNAGE
BUILD MORE
SAFE PLACES
TO RIDE
64%
78%
45%47%47%47%
39%
30%
50%
32%
18%
49%
26%23%
30%
23%
29%
15%
1%2 %1%
HAVE RIDDEN
E-SCOOTERALL HAVE NOT RIDDEN
E-SCOOTER
WHICH CHANGES ARE MOST CRITICAL
FOR MAKING E-SCOOTERS SUCCESSFUL IN ATLANTA?
SELECT UP TO 3PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP
5
HAVE RIDDEN
E-SCOOTERALL HAVE NOT RIDDEN
E-SCOOTER
WHICH REGULATIONS ARE MOST CRITICAL
TO MAKING ESCOOTERS SUCCESSFUL IN ATLANTA?
(SELECT UP TO 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
HAVE NOT RIDDENHAVE RIDDENALL
INCREASE
NUMBER OF
COMPANIES
NO CHANGES
ARE NEEDED
INCREASE
NUMBER OF
SCOOTERS
EXPAND
SERVICE
AREA
IMPROVE
ESCOOTER
MAINTENANCE
IMPROVE
EQUITABLE
ACCESS
DECREASE
NUMBER OF
COMPANIES
DECREASE
NUMBER OF
SCOOTERS
35%
19%
53%
33%
24%
44%
32%
37%
24%
29%
35%
19%
26%
35%
12%11%
17%
2%5 %7 %3 %5 %6 %2 %
WHICH REGULATIONS ARE MOST CRITICAL
FOR MAKING E-SCOOTERS SUCCESSFUL IN ATLANTA?
SELECT UP TO 3PHOTO BY DCP STAFF
6
WHO IS RIDING E-SCOOTERS
IN ATLANTA?
BY RACE/ETHNICITY BY AGE
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY IT OUTNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY IT OUTYES
OTHER
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
WHITE/CAUCASIAN
ASIAN/ASIANAMERICAN
HISPANIC/LATINX
TWO OR MORE RACES
20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY ITNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY ITYES
PREFER NOT
TO ANSWER
$150,000 OR MORE
$100,000$149,999
$75,000$99,999
$50,000$74,999
$30,000$49,999
UNDER $30,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY ITNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY ITYES
PREFER NOT
TO ANSWER
66+
5665
4655
3645
2635
1825
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY ITNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY ITYES
OTHER
WOMAN
MAN
BY GENDERBY INCOME
YES NO, BUT I WANT TO TRY IT NO, AND I DON’T WANT TO TRY IT
82%13%5%
76%16%9%
70%21%9%
57%33%10%
47%34%20%
42%44%14%
83%13%4%
77%16%6%
58%30%12%
48%48%13%
31%51%18%
26%64%10%
30%59%11%
66%24%10%
62%28%10%
63%26%11%
60%32%8%
62%27%10%
60%30%10%
42%45%14%
65%25%10%
68%18%14%
49%42%9%
BY RACE/ETHNICITY BY AGE
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY IT OUTNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY IT OUTYES
OTHER
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
WHITE/CAUCASIAN
ASIAN/ASIANAMERICAN
HISPANIC/LATINX
TWO OR MORE RACES
20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY ITNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY ITYES
PREFER NOT
TO ANSWER
$150,000 OR MORE
$100,000$149,999
$75,000$99,999
$50,000$74,999
$30,000$49,999
UNDER $30,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY ITNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY ITYES
PREFER NOT
TO ANSWER
66+
5665
4655
3645
2635
1825
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY ITNO, BUT I WANT TO TRY ITYES
OTHER
WOMAN
MAN
BY GENDERBY INCOME
YES NO, BUT I WANT TO TRY IT NO, AND I DON’T WANT TO TRY IT
82%13%5%
76%16%9%
70%21%9%
57%33%10%
47%34%20%
42%44%14%
83%13%4%
77%16%6%
58%30%12%
48%48%13%
31%51%18%
26%64%10%
30%59%11%
66%24%10%
62%28%10%
63%26%11%
60%32%8%
62%27%10%
60%30%10%
42%45%14%
65%25%10%
68%18%14%
49%42%9%
Riding e-scooters is popular with a diverse set of demographic groups. People of all ages have tried
and are interested in trying scooters, but younger adults are more likely to ride scooters. Higher income
individuals are slightly less likely to ride e-scooters. Women are slightly more likely to ride and be
interested in riding e-scooters.
YES, I HAVE RIDDEN AN E-SCOOTER NO, BUT I WANT TO TRY IT NO, AND I DO NOT WANT TO TRY IT
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
HAVE NOT RIDDEN
HAVE RIDDEN
OTHERI AM NOT
INTERESTED
IN RIDING
ESCOOTERS
THERE ARE
NO
BARRIERS
I RIDE
AS MUCH
AS I LIKE
TOO
EXPENSIVE
SERVICE
AREA
DOESN’T
REACH MY
DESTINATIONS
DIFFICULT
TO LOCATE
WHEN
I NEED
THEM
I DON’T
ALWAYS
FEEL SAFE
RIDING
THEM ON
ATLANTA
STREETS
NOT
ENOUGH
DEDICATED
BIKE/
ESCOOTER
LANES
0
20
40
60
80
100
HAVE NOT RIDDEN
HAVE RIDDEN
RELAY
BIKE
SHARE
PERSONAL
BIKE OR
ESCOOTER
TRANSITRIDEHAILINGWALKINGDRIVING MY
PERSONAL
VEHICLE
WHAT OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION
HAVE YOU TAKEN IN THE LAST MONTH? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
WHAT BARRIERS, IF ANY, PREVENT YOU FROM USING
E-SCOOTERS AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD LIKE? SELECT UP TO 3
E-scooter riders walk and drive at approximately the same rate as non-scooter riders. However, e-scooter
users have taken other forms of transportation more frequently in the last month such as transit, ride-hailing,
and biking. The most common barrier to riding e-scooters more often is the lack of safe street infrastructure.
87%
66%
42%
68%
16%17%
0%
70%
10%11%7%
40%
4%4%
48%
57%
5%0%4%
89%
61%
3%
91%
46%
19%
82%
54%
1%
HAVE RIDDEN
E-SCOOTER
HAVE NOT RIDDEN
E-SCOOTER
HAVE RIDDEN
E-SCOOTER
HAVE NOT RIDDEN
E-SCOOTER
8
Different experiences with e-scooters lead to
different perspectives of how to integrate them
into the transportation network.
If you have ridden an e-scooter, you are more
likely to think they should be part of Atlanta’s
transportation mix. You are also more likely
than non-riders to think that riding and parking
behavior has improved over the last year.
Most people of all age groups support e-scooters
as an option, but younger people are most likely
to support them. However, respondents’ different
income levels did not show different levels of
support for e-scooters.
WHO SUPPORTS E-SCOOTERS?
SHOULD THEY BE AN OPTION?
HOW DO PERSPECTIVES ON
E-SCOOTERS DIFFER?
30%
3%6%
34%
64%62%
E-SCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR
ATLANTANS. THE CURRENT E-SCOOTER
SYSTEM SERVES ATLANTA’S NEEDS WELL.
E-SCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR
ATLANTANS. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT
E-SCOOTER SYSTEM NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
E-SCOOTERS SHOULD
NOT BE AN OPTION
FOR ATLANTANS. PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP
9
AGREE OR DISAGREE?
PEOPLE ARE PARKING
THEIR SCOOTERS MORE
RESPONSIBLY THAN
ONE YEAR AGO
PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP0
10
20
30
40
50
60
STRONGLY AGREEDISGREEDISAGREEAGREESTRONGLY AGREEE
HAVE NOT RIDDEN AN ESCOOTERHAVE RIDDEN AN ESCOOTER
STRONGLY
AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE
15%
2%
26%
17%
29%
7%
15%
23%
15%
51%
SUPPORT BY AGE SUPPORT BY INCOME
E-SCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR
ATLANTANS. THE CURRENT E-SCOOTER
SYSTEM SERVES ATLANTA’S NEEDS WELL.
E-SCOOTERS SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR
ATLANTANS. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT
E-SCOOTER SYSTEM NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
E-SCOOTERS SHOULD
NOT BE AN OPTION
FOR ATLANTANS.
66%
67%
64%
62%
64%
67%
29%
24%
22%
20%
11%
9%
5%
9%
14%
18%
26%
24%
42%
21%
18%
18%
18%
25%
26%
14%
66%
68%
61%
62%
61%
61%
45%
16%
14%
18%
20%
14%
13%
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 WOULD HAVE TAKEN CARWOULD HAVE WALKED
MORE
FUN!
I DIDN’T
WANT TO
GET SWEATY
TRANSIT
NOT
AVAILABLE
FOR TRIP
MORE
CONVENIENT
CHEAPERMORE
RELIABLE
GOT ME
THERE
SOONER
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE AN E-SCOOTER FOR YOUR LAST
TRIP OVER ANOTHER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION?
I WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE WALKED
I WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE TAKEN A CAR
HOW ARE PEOPLE
USING E-SCOOTERS?
Most e-scooter trips in Atlanta are reported to be
replacing walking or single occupant car trips
(ride hailing and personally driven vehicles). Top
reasons reported for using e-scooters instead of
other modes of transportation are to get people
to their desinations faster, more conveniently, and
in a more enjoyable manner. Additionally, many
of those who would have used a car report that
e-scooters were a cheaper alternative.
GOT ME
THERE
SOONER
MORE
CONVENIENT
MORE
FUN!
CHEAPER I DIDN’T
WANT TO
GET SWEATY
TRANSIT NOT
AVAILABLE
MORE
RELIABLE
66%
40%
22%
35%
6%8%2%
44%
49%
9%
58%
33%
10%4%PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP
11
IF AN E-SCOOTER HAD NOT BEEN AVAILABLE,
HOW WOULD YOU HAVE MADE YOUR LAST TRIP?
0
10
20
30
40
50
TAKEN MARTA
TRANSIT (BUS OR TRAIN)
RIDDEN
A BIKE
I WOULD
NOT HAVE MADE THIS TRIP
SINGLE VEHICLE
(PERSONAL ORRIDESHARING)
WALKED
48%
5%4%
42%
2%PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP
12
To get a better understanding of how people are
using e-scooters, we classified riding respondents
as casual riders or frequent riders.
Casual riders are categorized as those taking
e-scooters a few times per month or less.
Casual riders report they are more likely to use
e-scooters for social recreation, special events,
and riding around just for fun. Frequent riders
ride 1-2 times per week or more. They are more
likely to use e-scooters for work and school trips,
as well as shopping or running errands. Frequent
riders also report more often that they rode in the
street with cars or in a bike lane.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CASUAL RIDERS
FREQUENT RIDERS
SEVERAL
TIMES
A WEEK
12
TIMES
A WEEK
A FEW
TIMES
A MONTH
LESS THAN
ONCE
PER MONTH
I HAVE
ONLY TAKEN
1 RIDE
HOW OFTEN DO YOU RIDE E-SCOOTERS?
CASUAL RIDERS VS .
FREQUENT RIDERS
FREQUENT
RIDERS
CASUAL
RIDERS
14%
33%
9%
33%
10%
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 FREQUENT RIDERS CASUAL RIDERS
SCHOOLRIDING
AROUND
FOR FUN
SPECIAL EVENT
(CONCERT,
STREETS ALIVE,
SPORTS GAME)
ERRANDS
OR
SHOPPING
WORKSOCIAL
RECREATION
(MOVIE,
RESTAURANT,
VISIT FRIENDS)
WHAT ARE YOUR TOP 2 DESTINATIONS WHEN RIDING?
WHERE DID YOU RIDE YOUR E-SCOOTER ON
YOUR LAST TRIP? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FREQUENT RIDERS CASUAL RIDERS
ATLANTA BELTLINE
OR OTHER
OFFSTREET TRAIL
SIDEWALKBIKE LANEIN THE STREET
IN THE SAME
LANES AS CARS
CITY PARK
SOCIAL
RECREATION
(MOVIE,
RESTAURANT,
VISITING FRIENDS
SPECIAL EVENT
(CONCERT,
STREETS ALIVE,
SPORTS GAME)
ERRANDS OR
SHOPPING
RIDING AROUND
FOR FUN
WORK SCHOOL
BELTLINE
OR OTHER
OFF-STREET
TRAIL
BIKE LANECITY PARK IN THE STREET
IN THE SAME
LANE AS CARS
SIDEWALK
FREQUENT
RIDERS
CASUAL
RIDERS
52%
17%
57%
13%
33%
3%
63%
36%
20%
29%
17%13%
66%
57%
31%
52%
14%
49%49%
39%
31%
13%
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
WORE A HELMET ON LAST TRIPDID NOT WEAR A HELMET ON LAST TRIP
CASUAL RIDERS
FREQUENT RIDERS
HELMET USE, BY RIDER FREQUENCY
CRASHESOf all respondents, 8.8% (233 people) were
personally involved in an e-scooter crash while
44% (1,166 people) reported that they had seen
a crash.
Of all respondents, around 13% of e-scooter
riders report having been in a crash while 4%
of respondents who have not ridden have been
involved in a crash.
Overall, 9% of riders reported wearing a helmet
on their last trip. Frequent Riders were more
likely than Casual Riders to report helmet use.
17%
8%
83%
92%PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP
15
HOW DO E-SCOOTERS RELATE TO TRANSIT
USE IN ATLANTA?
0 20 40 60 80 100
DID CONNECT TO TRANSIT ON LAST TRIPDID NOT CONNECT TO TRANSIT ON LAST TRIP
CASUAL RIDERS
FREQUENT RIDERS
ALL RIDERS
Over 20% of trips are reported to connect to transit as part of the trip. Frequent riders are more likely
than casual riders to connect to transit.
FREQUENT
RIDERS
CASUAL
RIDERS
ALL
RIDERS 79%21%
69%31%
82%18%PHOTO BY MATCHSTIC
16
BAN THEM!
SUPPORTIVE NONRIDERS
INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED
BUILDING CONFIDENCE
POWER USER
BAN THEM!
SUPPORTIVE NONRIDERS
INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED
BUILDING CONFIDENCE
POWER USER
11%
42%
11%
18%
18%
Power Users (11%): Frequent Riders who ride once a week or more
Building Confidence (42%): Casual Riders who ride less than once per week
Interested but Concerned (11%): Non-riders who are interested in riding
Supportive Non-Riders (18%): Non-riders who are not interested in riding
e-scooters themselves, but agree they should be an option for others
Ban Them! (18%): Non-riders who have not ridden an e-scooter, and do not think
they should be an option for others
To better understand the diverse perspectives of e-scooters in Atlanta, we broke down survey respondents
by their broad opinion types and people’s different riding behaviors.
2019 ATLANTA E-SCOOTER SURVEY RESULTSPROFILES
17PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCP
18
MY AGE IS:
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
66+
5665
4655
3645
2635
1825
UNDER 18
MY AGE IS:
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
66+
5665
4655
3645
2635
1825
UNDER 18
MY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS:
UNDER $30,000
$30,000$49,999
$50,000$74,999
$75,000 $99,999
$100,000 $149,999
$150,000 OR MORE
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
MY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS:
UNDER $30,000
$30,000$49,999
$50,000$74,999
$75,000 $99,999
$100,000 $149,999
$150,000 OR MORE
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
MY AGE IS:
MY INCOME
LEVEL IS:
26%
16%
3%
7%
14%
13%
20%
31%
24%
18%
10%
5%
4%
7%SURVEY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
19
DO YOU IDENTIFY WITH HAVING OR LIVING WITH A DISABILITY?
YES
NO
I IDENTIFY MY GENDER AS:
MAN
WOMAN
NONBINARY
OTHER
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
WHITE/CAUCASIAN
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
OTHER
TWO OR MORE RACES
HISPANIC/LATINO
ASIAN/ASIANAMERICAN
NO
YES
WHITE/CAUCASIAN
BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN
OTHER
TWO OR MORE RACES
HISPANIC/LATINO
ASIAN/ASIANAMERICAN
I IDENTIFY MY
GENDER AS:
I IDENTIFY MY
RACE/ETHNICITY
TO BE:
DO YOU IDENTIFY
WITH HAVING
OR LIVING WITH
A DISBILITY?
OTHER
PREFER NOT TO ANSWER
WOMAN
NON-BINARY
MAN
54%40%
4%1%
68%
94%
11%
6%
5%3%3%
11%
20
BACK COVER PHOTO BY MAD DWORSCHAK, DCPScoot Smart.
Atlanta Loves You.
201902529
Appendix H – Capacity Analysis Report
LegendFrantz Rd
Feasibility
Study
Dublin, OH
2019.02529
N
Growth
Rates
Parkcenter Ave
Bradenton Ave
Rings Rd
Blazer Pkwy
Monterey Dr
Metro Pl S
Metro Pl N
US 33 W Bridge St
Frantz Rd
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
2%3%
4%
0%
4%
4%
3%
15%
3%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
8
Growth Rates: N-S
Frantz Rd
•1% north of Monterey Dr
•3% south of Monterey Dr
Growth Rates: E-W
US 33/W Bridge St
•3% west of Frantz Rd
•2% east of Frantz Rd
Metro Place N
•0%
Metro Place S
•0%
Monterey Dr
•4%
Blazer Pkwy
•0%
Rings Rd
•4%
Bradenton Ave
•3%
Parkcenter Ave
•15%
Tuttle Crossing Blvd
•3% west of Frantz Rd
•0% east of Frantz Rd
Study Intersection
Linear Annual Growth Rate
1
3%
0%
Tuttle Crossing Blvd
Corbins Mill Dr
Longbranch Dr
Tuttle Rd
Post Rd
Rings Rd
Projected Linear Annual
Growth Rates (20-yr)
2019.02529
Capacity Analysis Results and Synchro Output
Existing Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
[No-Build]
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Existing Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB E 61.6 0.79 175
SB D 40.5 0.61 275
EB F 102.5 1.23 425
WB D 39.8 0.56 350
Overall E 73.0 ----
NB D 51.6 0.80 200
SB D 45.9 0.66 200
EB D 35.3 0.65 250
WB C 27.0 0.40 200
Overall D 38.6 ----
NB E 70.9 0.99 600
SB E 58.1 0.96 500
EB E 59.5 0.94 450
WB E 73.9 0.93 375
Overall E 65.0 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.7 0.16 100
SB A 0.5 0.45 325
EB E 64.2 0.53 75
WB E 63.2 0.77 150
Overall A 8.9 ----
NB A 1.2 0.25 200
SB A 0.8 0.21 125
EB D 49.9 0.81 200
WB D 50.2 0.80 175
Overall B 19.6 ----
NB A 2.2 0.56 500
SB A 1.6 0.21 175
EB E 67.5 0.94 450
WB E 63.2 0.80 175
Overall C 24.9 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
2020
AM
01 - Frantz Rd & US 33/W Bridge St [Signal]
2020
MD
2020
PM
2020
PM
02 - Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr [Signal]
2020
AM
2020
MD
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Existing Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.9 0.39 25
SB A 0.3 0.32 75
EB D 54.5 0.15 25
WB --------
Overall A 2.2 ----
NB A 3.3 0.20 50
SB A 0.2 0.21 75
EB D 43.0 0.56 50
WB --------
Overall A 8.9 ----
NB A 1.4 0.43 125
SB A 3.7 0.24 25
EB D 47.3 0.73 175
WB --------
Overall B 11.8 ----
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.0 0.00 0
SB*B 11.0 0.01 0
EB --------
WB*B 13.3 0.13 25
Overall A 1.0 ----
NB A 0.0 0.00 0
SB*B 11.0 0.02 25
EB --------
WB*B 13.1 0.09 25
Overall A 1.1 ----
NB A 0.0 0.00 0
SB*C 19.1 0.13 25
EB --------
WB*C 19.7 0.14 25
Overall A 4.1 ----
*represents operations for left-turn movement only
03 - Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S [Signal]
2020
AM
2020
MD
2020
PM
04 - Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr [One-Way Stop]
2020
AM
2020
MD
2020
PM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Existing Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 4.2 0.27 125
SB A 0.9 0.39 175
EB E 59.9 0.24 50
WB E 67.2 0.34 0
Overall A 4.3 ----
NB B 11.5 0.36 275
SB C 31.2 0.42 350
EB D 53.9 0.77 275
WB E 65.2 0.39 0
Overall C 29.4 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB B 10.7 0.39 75
SB B 13.2 0.31 150
EB C 32.2 0.36 75
WB D 37.3 0.54 100
Overall B 18.4 ----
NB A 4.3 0.48 200
SB B 19.1 0.57 275
EB C 30.6 0.66 175
WB C 32.4 0.34 50
Overall B 18.9 ----
05 - Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy [Signal]
2020
AM
2020
MD data not available
2020
PM
06 - Frantz Rd & Rings Rd [Signal]
2020
AM
2020
MD data not available
2020
PM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Existing Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB*A 8.6 0.01 0
SB*B 10.0 0.03 25
EB A 0.0 0.00 0
WB D 27.1 0.02 25
Overall A 0.2 ----
NB*B 10.4 0.01 0
SB*A 9.3 0.01 0
EB B 12.3 0.01 0
WB D 27.0 0.24 25
Overall A 0.8 ----
*represents operations for left-turn movement only
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.8 0.34 75
SB A 9.5 0.20 25
EB D 37.2 0.14 50
WB D 38.4 0.28 50
Overall A 6.3 ----
NB A 7.0 0.24 100
SB A 0.7 0.25 100
EB C 27.4 0.22 50
WB C 27.3 0.19 25
Overall A 6.6 ----
NB B 18.4 0.30 175
SB B 18.3 0.40 275
EB D 36.3 0.42 75
WB D 37.4 0.51 75
Overall C 20.8 ----
07 - Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct [Two-Way Stop]
2020
AM
2020
MD data not available
2020
PM
08 - Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave [Signal]
2020
AM
2020
MD
2020
PM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Existing Year 2020 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB*A 8.4 0.09 25
SB*A 9.6 0.01 0
EB C 16.7 0.07 25
WB B 11.3 0.01 0
Overall A 1.0 ----
NB*A 8.6 0.04 25
SB*A 8.3 0.01 0
EB B 14.1 0.09 25
WB C 15.9 0.03 25
Overall A 1.3 ----
NB*B 11.4 0.05 25
SB*A 8.8 0.01 0
EB C 24.1 0.31 25
WB D 29.0 0.11 25
Overall A 2.2 ----
*represents operations for left-turn movement only
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB C 23.3 0.74 250
SB C 27.3 0.53 125
EB C 25.1 0.57 150
WB D 37.6 0.33 75
Overall C 25.0 ----
NB C 25.9 0.77 100
SB B 18.3 0.53 100
EB B 19.9 0.54 125
WB C 30.9 0.45 75
Overall C 22.1 ----
NB C 23.2 0.75 125
SB A 8.6 0.61 225
EB C 21.8 0.52 100
WB D 46.3 0.81 175
Overall B 19.0 ----
2020
PM
09 - Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave [Two-Way Stop]
2020
AM
2020
MD
10 - Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd [Signal]
2020
AM
2020
MD
2020
PM
2019.02529
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 590 703 1160 195 628 277 140 163 178 697
Future Volume (vph) 590 703 1160 195 628 277 140 163 178 697
Lane Group Flow (vph) 648 773 1275 214 880 304 213 161 214 766
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 15.7 33.0 46.1 17.4 26.0 46.1 46.1 26.0 26.0 15.7
Total Split (s) 36.0 40.0 35.0 25.0 29.0 35.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 36.0
Total Split (%) 27.7% 30.8% 26.9% 19.2% 22.3% 26.9% 26.9% 23.1% 23.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.6 6.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max None
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.88 0.83 0.43 0.92 0.44 0.31 0.47 0.58 0.54
Control Delay 62.4 58.9 15.7 53.7 64.6 45.2 34.1 51.7 54.5 19.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.4 58.9 15.7 53.7 64.6 45.2 34.1 51.7 54.5 19.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 270 330 171 86 260 124 72 130 176 192
Queue Length 95th (ft) #343 #435 225 126 #353 166 105 209 270 259
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1043 821 1271 568
Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 375 575 425 325
Base Capacity (vph) 779 881 1582 492 957 765 763 341 370 1450
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.43 0.92 0.40 0.28 0.47 0.58 0.53
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 36 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 125
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 590 703 1160 195 628 173 277 140 54 163 178 697
Future Volume (veh/h) 590 703 1160 195 628 173 277 140 54 163 178 697
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1900 1841 1885 1885 1870 1826 1826 1826 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 648 773 1275 214 690 190 304 154 59 179 196 766
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 0 4 1 1 2 5 5 5 1 1
Cap, veh/h 708 888 1037 875 1249 339 387 278 102 326 354 1254
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3497 2834 3401 4026 1093 3456 2482 914 1739 1885 3195
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 648 773 1275 214 587 293 304 106 107 179 196 766
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1749 1417 1700 1716 1688 1728 1735 1661 1739 1885 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 23.9 27.5 33.0 6.5 18.5 18.9 11.3 7.8 8.3 12.1 12.3 24.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.9 27.5 33.0 6.5 18.5 18.9 11.3 7.8 8.3 12.1 12.3 24.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 708 888 1037 875 1064 524 387 194 186 326 354 1254
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.87 1.23 0.24 0.55 0.56 0.79 0.54 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.61
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 784 888 1037 875 1064 524 771 387 371 326 354 1254
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.6 46.5 36.6 38.3 37.3 37.4 61.1 59.3 59.6 47.8 47.9 31.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.2 11.4 112.1 0.1 2.1 4.3 1.3 0.9 1.0 6.5 6.1 2.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.6 13.2 33.2 2.7 8.0 8.4 5.3 3.6 3.7 5.8 6.3 9.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.8 57.9 148.7 38.4 39.4 41.7 62.4 60.2 60.6 54.3 54.0 33.8
LnGrp LOS E E F D D D E E E D D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2696 1094 517 1141
Approach Delay, s/veh 102.5 39.8 61.6 40.5
Approach LOS F D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.1 46.3 20.5 39.5 40.0 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.5 23.0 29.0 19.0 33.0 24.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.9 20.9 13.3 8.5 35.0 26.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 73.0
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 364 65 22 950 500
Future Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 364 65 22 950 500
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 45 124 94 53 383 68 23 1000 526
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.30 0.62 0.44 0.15 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.45 0.41
Control Delay 61.7 45.0 68.0 54.0 8.1 10.8 3.3 8.5 15.6 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 61.7 45.0 68.0 54.0 8.1 10.8 3.3 8.5 15.6 1.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 25 102 68 10 74 0 4 232 33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 65 160 118 36 106 21 m12 333 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 441 459 366 2254 1282 705 2203 1402
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.38
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 71 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 364 65 22 950 500
Future Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 364 65 22 950 500
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1870 1663 1900 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 35 15 124 76 18 53 383 68 23 1000 526
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 16 0 1 0
Cap, veh/h 94 66 28 160 131 31 348 2430 1090 737 2410 1167
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1262 541 1781 1462 346 1810 3554 1409 1810 3582 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 50 124 0 94 53 383 68 23 1000 526
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1803 1781 0 1808 1810 1777 1409 1810 1791 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 0 94 160 0 163 348 2430 1090 737 2410 1167
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.53 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.15 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.41 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 435 444 0 451 372 2430 1090 781 2410 1167
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.58 0.58 0.58
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.9 0.0 60.1 57.9 0.0 56.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.0 4.6 7.7 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 1.7 4.4 0.0 3.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.8 0.0 64.7 65.6 0.0 60.0 5.8 0.1 0.1 6.0 0.3 0.7
LnGrp LOS E A E E A E A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 96 218 504 1549
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.2 63.2 0.7 0.5
Approach LOS E E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 94.5 12.4 8.3 93.1 16.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 2.0 5.5 3.2 2.0 10.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.0 11.8 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 28 204 441 850 208
Future Volume (vph) 29 28 204 441 850 208
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 29 213 459 885 217
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 42.0 24.0 24.0 88.0 64.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 32.3% 18.5% 18.5% 67.7% 49.2% 32.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.08 0.38 0.16 0.35 0.16
Control Delay 57.1 13.2 5.3 1.9 4.7 0.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.1 13.2 5.3 1.9 4.7 0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 0 23 26 74 3
Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 25 35 34 84 5
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 955 428 628 2931 2555 1614
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.35 0.13
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 95 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 441 850 208
Future Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 441 850 208
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1885 1841 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 29 212 459 885 217
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 1 4 1 0
Cap, veh/h 231 190 545 2986 2727 1335
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 1560 1795 3589 3676 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 29 212 459 885 217
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1560 1795 1749 1791 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 231 190 545 2986 2727 1335
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.15 0.39 0.15 0.32 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 965 527 710 2986 2727 1335
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 51.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.3 51.6 2.6 0.1 0.3 0.2
LnGrp LOS E D A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 59 671 1102
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.5 0.9 0.3
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 104.1 13.9 116.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 58.9 36.9 82.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 2.0 4.2 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 19.2 0.2 6.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 AM
4: Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 44 626 8 8 6 927
Future Vol, veh/h 18 44 626 8 8 6 927
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 3 0 0 17 1
Mvmt Flow 19 46 659 8 8 6 976
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1179 334 0 0 667 667 0
Stage 1 663 - - - - - -
Stage 2 516 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.96 - - 6.4 4.44 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.33 - - 2.5 2.37 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 186 659 - - 550 824 -
Stage 1 480 - - - - - -
Stage 2 570 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 176 659 - - 612 612 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 312 - - - - - -
Stage 1 480 - - - - - -
Stage 2 539 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0 0.8
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 498 612 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.131 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.3 11 0.6
HCM Lane LOS - - B B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 1 5 0 61 690 2 510
Future Volume (vph) 33 1 5 0 61 690 2 510
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 23 0 14 67 758 2 1019
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 24.0 24.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0
Total Split (%) 36.2% 36.2% 18.5% 18.5% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.36
Control Delay 59.1 42.5 1.1 5.2 3.8 7.5 4.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.1 42.5 1.1 5.2 3.8 7.5 4.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 11 0 9 55 0 91
Queue Length 95th (ft) 50 42 0 35 134 m2 175
Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 500 483 278 435 3029 583 2863
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.36
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 77 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 1 8 5 0 8 61 690 0 2 510 418
Future Volume (veh/h) 33 1 8 5 0 8 61 690 0 2 510 418
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1900 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 19 9 5 0 9 67 758 0 2 560 459
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 109 79 37 15 0 26 495 2778 0 574 1449 1188
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1219 577 599 0 1077 562 3647 0 718 1854 1519
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 23 0 28 14 0 0 67 758 0 2 537 482
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 1796 1676 0 0 562 1777 0 718 1777 1597
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 0.36 0.64 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 0 116 41 0 0 495 2778 0 574 1389 1248
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.24 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 536 0 572 245 0 0 495 2778 0 574 1389 1248
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.6 0.0 57.8 62.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 2.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.7 0.0 60.0 67.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.2 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.9
LnGrp LOS E A E E A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 51 14 825 1021
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.9 67.2 4.2 0.9
Approach LOS E E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 107.8 14.0 107.8 8.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.8 41.4 52.8 19.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 3.9 9.7 3.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.0 0.4 8.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 96 56 107 69 191 227 572 28 343
Future Volume (vph) 96 56 107 69 191 227 572 28 343
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 57 109 70 234 232 611 29 533
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 15.0 38.0 12.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 22.2% 16.7% 22.2% 24.4% 16.7% 42.2% 13.3% 38.9%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.49 0.40 0.30 0.06 0.33
Control Delay 25.8 35.3 4.6 24.0 36.2 7.4 7.5 8.6 14.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.8 35.3 4.6 24.0 36.2 7.4 7.5 8.6 14.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 29 0 30 60 21 45 6 75
Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 61 30 56 93 71 86 19 143
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 388 301 597 456 657 591 2028 545 1612
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.36 0.39 0.30 0.05 0.33
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 8 (9%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 56 107 69 191 38 227 572 26 28 343 179
Future Volume (veh/h) 96 56 107 69 191 38 227 572 26 28 343 179
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1841 1841 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 57 109 70 195 39 232 584 27 29 350 183
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 274 237 329 335 368 72 594 1921 89 535 1158 595
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.51 0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1841 1560 1810 3009 590 1781 3459 160 1810 2253 1157
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 57 109 70 115 119 232 300 311 29 272 261
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1560 1810 1805 1794 1781 1777 1842 1810 1763 1647
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 2.5 5.3 2.9 5.4 5.6 5.2 8.1 8.1 0.7 8.0 8.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 2.5 5.3 2.9 5.4 5.6 5.2 8.1 8.1 0.7 8.0 8.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.70
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 274 237 329 335 221 219 594 987 1023 535 906 847
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.24 0.33 0.21 0.52 0.54 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.30 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 423 297 379 540 331 329 666 987 1023 624 906 847
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 35.2 30.1 31.0 37.0 37.1 8.4 10.7 10.7 9.2 12.6 12.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.2 1.9 2.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.4 2.5 1.8 3.1 3.2 0.2 3.1 3.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.8 35.7 30.7 31.2 39.0 39.2 8.7 11.5 11.5 9.2 13.4 13.5
LnGrp LOS C D C C D D A B B A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 264 304 843 562
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 37.3 10.7 13.2
Approach LOS C D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 55.5 9.8 17.1 11.3 51.8 10.4 16.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 32.5 16.0 14.5 11.0 29.5 14.0 16.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 10.1 4.9 7.3 7.2 10.2 6.3 7.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 3.7 0.1 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 AM
7: Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 849 19 18 524 3
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 849 19 18 524 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 2 0 1 7 923 21 20 570 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1088 1570 287 1273 1561 472 573 0 0 944 0 0
Stage 1 612 612 - 948 948 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 476 958 - 325 613 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 112 716 126 113 544 1010 - - 735 - -
Stage 1 452 487 - 284 342 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 544 338 - 667 486 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 168 108 716 123 109 544 1010 - - 735 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 168 108 - 123 109 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 449 474 - 282 340 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 539 336 - 649 473 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 27.1 0.1 0.3
HCM LOS A D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1010 - - - 166 735 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - - 0.02 0.027 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 0 27.1 10 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 0.1 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 3 13 11 21 749 32 360
Future Volume (vph) 30 3 13 11 21 749 32 360
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 4 0 61 22 838 34 464
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 38.0 20.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 22.2% 42.2% 22.2% 42.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.02 0.29 0.03 0.32 0.06 0.18
Control Delay 38.4 32.5 23.4 1.8 4.4 1.6 2.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 38.4 32.5 23.4 1.8 4.4 1.6 2.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 2 14 1 82 2 11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 11 50 m4 82 5 26
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 488 526 489 892 2587 660 2577
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.32 0.05 0.18
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 55.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 3 1 13 11 33 21 749 39 32 360 76
Future Volume (veh/h) 30 3 1 13 11 33 21 749 39 32 360 76
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1856 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 3 1 14 12 35 22 797 41 34 383 81
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4
Cap, veh/h 229 138 46 71 50 96 711 2337 120 597 1974 413
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.46 0.46
Sat Flow, veh/h 1337 1364 455 214 493 952 1810 3466 178 1767 2878 603
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 0 4 61 0 0 22 412 426 34 231 233
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1337 0 1818 1659 0 0 1810 1791 1853 1767 1749 1732
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.1 7.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.1 7.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 0.23 0.57 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 229 0 184 217 0 0 711 1207 1249 597 1199 1188
V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.19 0.20
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 479 0 523 518 0 0 961 1207 1249 821 1199 1188
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.0 0.0 36.4 37.7 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 9.5 9.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.6 2.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.3 0.0 36.5 38.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.8 0.7 3.7 9.9 10.0
LnGrp LOS D A D D A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 36 61 860 498
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.2 38.4 0.8 9.5
Approach LOS D D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 67.2 15.2 8.6 66.2 15.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.4 32.5 25.9 15.4 32.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 9.2 3.5 2.5 2.0 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.1 0.0 11.3 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.3
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 AM
9: Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 0 17 0 0 1 96 790 4 5 322 43
Future Vol, veh/h 11 0 17 0 0 1 96 790 4 5 322 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 75 - - - - - 200 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 24 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 0
Mvmt Flow 12 0 19 0 0 1 105 868 4 5 354 47
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1032 1470 201 1267 1491 436 401 0 0 872 0 0
Stage 1 388 388 - 1080 1080 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 644 1082 - 187 411 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 7.38 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.14 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.54 3.5 4 3.3 2.22 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 190 129 742 128 125 574 1154 - - 782 - -
Stage 1 613 612 - 236 297 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 433 296 - 803 598 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 176 117 742 116 113 574 1154 - - 782 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 176 117 - 116 113 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 557 608 - 215 270 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 393 269 - 778 594 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.7 11.3 0.9 0.1
HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1154 - - 176 742 574 782 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - - 0.069 0.025 0.002 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - - 27 10 11.3 9.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.2 0.1 0 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 AM
10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 202 139 218 6 54 209 730 22 245 50
Future Volume (vph) 202 139 218 6 54 209 730 22 245 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 217 149 234 6 67 225 798 24 263 54
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 5 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 8 8 5 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 13.1 39.0 13.5 40.8 40.8 13.5 30.5 13.2 39.8 39.8
Total Split (s) 16.0 38.0 17.0 22.0 22.0 17.0 40.0 12.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 17.8% 42.2% 18.9% 24.4% 24.4% 18.9% 44.4% 13.3% 38.9% 38.9%
Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.8 3.2 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 7.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.4 5.4
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.31 0.17 0.05 0.31 0.53 0.41 0.18 0.19 0.07
Control Delay 38.4 27.2 1.8 36.2 37.4 41.3 15.4 38.4 24.2 2.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 38.4 27.2 1.8 36.2 37.4 41.3 15.4 38.4 24.2 2.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 65 0 3 32 62 121 14 40 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 159 112 17 14 70 94 240 38 121 15
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1368 1219 1103 587
Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 475 200 500 175
Base Capacity (vph) 317 654 1400 179 310 450 1937 136 1404 744
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.23 0.17 0.03 0.22 0.50 0.41 0.18 0.19 0.07
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 AM
10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 202 139 218 6 54 8 209 730 12 22 245 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 202 139 218 6 54 8 209 730 12 22 245 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1900 1841 1648 1900 1900 1856 1885 1885 1900 1811 1811
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 217 149 234 6 58 9 225 785 13 24 263 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 4 17 0 0 3 1 1 0 6 6
Cap, veh/h 380 549 1036 178 178 28 303 1728 29 45 1432 639
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.14 0.14
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1900 2745 881 1606 249 3428 3606 60 1810 3441 1535
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 217 149 234 6 0 67 225 390 408 24 263 54
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1900 1373 881 0 1855 1714 1791 1874 1810 1721 1535
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 5.4 5.2 0.5 0.0 3.0 5.8 13.0 13.0 1.2 6.1 2.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 5.4 5.2 0.5 0.0 3.0 5.8 13.0 13.0 1.2 6.1 2.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 549 1036 178 0 206 303 859 899 45 1432 639
V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.27 0.23 0.03 0.00 0.33 0.74 0.45 0.45 0.53 0.18 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 380 654 1188 227 0 309 411 859 899 117 1432 639
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.5 24.7 19.1 35.8 0.0 36.9 40.0 15.6 15.6 44.1 25.3 23.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 4.8 1.7 1.7 9.2 0.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 2.3 1.7 0.1 0.0 1.4 2.6 5.4 5.6 0.6 2.6 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.6 25.0 19.2 35.9 0.0 37.8 44.8 17.3 17.2 53.3 25.6 24.1
LnGrp LOS C C B D A D D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 600 73 1023 341
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.1 37.6 23.3 27.3
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 48.5 33.0 14.1 42.9 16.0 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 * 5.4 * 7 * 6.2 * 5.4 * 6.1 * 7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.8 * 35 * 31 * 11 * 30 * 9.9 * 15
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 15.0 7.4 7.8 8.1 11.4 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 1.6 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 136 542 320 148 552 400 190 234 105 265
Future Volume (vph) 136 542 320 148 552 400 190 234 105 265
Lane Group Flow (vph) 143 571 337 156 784 421 320 175 182 279
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 14.4 33.0 46.1 14.4 48.0 46.1 46.1 20.0 20.0 14.4
Total Split (s) 20.0 36.0 30.0 20.0 36.0 30.0 30.0 24.0 24.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 18.2% 32.7% 27.3% 18.2% 32.7% 27.3% 27.3% 21.8% 21.8% 18.2%
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.6 6.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max None
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.62 0.23 0.38 0.51 0.68 0.47 0.51 0.51 0.26
Control Delay 53.0 39.2 1.2 46.9 29.5 41.4 23.3 46.2 46.2 12.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.0 39.2 1.2 46.9 29.5 41.4 23.3 46.2 46.2 12.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 187 0 52 148 103 36 116 122 32
Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 247 11 86 197 195 125 200 207 68
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1043 821 1271 568
Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 375 575 425 325
Base Capacity (vph) 425 915 1539 416 1537 749 805 345 354 1154
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.62 0.22 0.38 0.51 0.56 0.40 0.51 0.51 0.24
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 136 542 320 148 552 193 400 190 114 234 105 265
Future Volume (veh/h) 136 542 320 148 552 193 400 190 114 234 105 265
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1841 1870 1796 1841 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 143 571 337 156 581 203 421 200 120 178 205 279
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 4 2 7 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 2
Cap, veh/h 219 922 1161 641 1475 503 527 331 190 298 310 729
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3497 2790 3319 3701 1262 3456 2175 1247 1781 1856 3170
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 143 571 337 156 525 259 421 162 158 178 205 279
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1749 1395 1659 1675 1614 1728 1777 1646 1781 1856 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 15.8 8.8 4.4 12.3 12.7 13.3 9.8 10.4 10.2 11.4 8.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 15.8 8.8 4.4 12.3 12.7 13.3 9.8 10.4 10.2 11.4 8.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 922 1161 641 1335 643 527 271 251 298 310 729
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.62 0.29 0.24 0.39 0.40 0.80 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.66 0.38
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 427 922 1161 641 1335 643 754 388 359 298 310 729
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 35.6 21.3 37.6 23.6 23.7 50.6 48.9 49.2 42.4 42.9 35.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 3.1 0.6 0.1 0.9 1.9 2.3 0.7 0.9 8.6 10.6 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 7.0 3.8 1.8 4.9 5.1 6.3 4.7 4.6 5.1 6.1 3.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.8 38.8 22.0 37.7 24.5 25.6 52.9 49.7 50.1 50.9 53.4 37.3
LnGrp LOS D D C D C C D D D D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1051 940 741 662
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.3 27.0 51.6 45.9
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 49.8 22.8 27.2 36.0 24.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 30.0 24.0 14.0 29.0 18.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 14.7 15.3 6.4 17.8 13.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.4 1.5 0.2 6.3 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 232 84 178 88 50 432 130 23 344 131
Future Volume (vph) 232 84 178 88 50 432 130 23 344 131
Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 195 189 118 53 460 138 24 366 139
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 9.1% 23.6% 33.6% 9.1% 23.6% 33.6%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.63 0.66 0.39 0.10 0.28 0.12 0.05 0.24 0.14
Control Delay 54.1 46.2 53.6 39.5 17.5 23.5 5.5 13.5 19.6 0.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.1 46.2 53.6 39.5 17.5 23.5 5.5 13.5 19.6 0.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 141 121 126 67 21 122 0 7 74 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 206 186 187 115 54 198 43 m23 128 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 484 499 531 545 548 1631 1322 502 1527 1138
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.39 0.36 0.22 0.10 0.28 0.10 0.05 0.24 0.12
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 53 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 232 84 55 178 88 23 50 432 130 23 344 131
Future Volume (veh/h) 232 84 55 178 88 23 50 432 130 23 344 131
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1856 1885 1900 1841 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 198 158 59 189 94 24 53 460 138 24 366 139
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 3
Cap, veh/h 267 196 73 236 190 49 590 1824 1035 529 1764 1027
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1319 492 1810 1460 373 1810 3526 1598 1810 3497 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 0 217 189 0 118 53 460 138 24 366 139
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1811 1810 0 1833 1810 1763 1598 1810 1749 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 0.0 12.7 11.2 0.0 6.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 0.0 12.7 11.2 0.0 6.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 267 0 270 236 0 239 590 1824 1035 529 1764 1027
V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.81 0.80 0.00 0.49 0.09 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.21 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 513 0 517 533 0 540 622 1824 1035 585 1764 1027
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.95
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 0.0 45.3 46.5 0.0 44.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.0 0.0 5.6 6.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 0.0 6.1 5.5 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 0.0 50.9 52.7 0.0 46.1 11.5 0.3 0.3 12.1 0.3 0.3
LnGrp LOS D A D D A D B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 415 307 651 529
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.9 50.2 1.2 0.8
Approach LOS D D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 62.5 22.0 8.0 61.1 18.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 20.4 31.4 6.0 20.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 2.0 14.7 3.5 2.0 13.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 1.6 0.0 2.6 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 160 139 511 484 81
Future Volume (vph) 88 160 139 511 484 81
Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 168 146 538 509 85
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 41.0 25.0 25.0 69.0 44.0 41.0
Total Split (%) 37.3% 22.7% 22.7% 62.7% 40.0% 37.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.36 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.06
Control Delay 49.0 8.1 2.7 2.4 6.3 2.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.0 8.1 2.7 2.4 6.3 2.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 2 16 33 69 2
Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 56 28 46 85 18
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 1109 620 839 2881 2437 1615
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.05
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 73 (66%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 88 160 139 511 484 81
Future Volume (veh/h) 88 160 139 511 484 81
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1870 1885 1870 1856 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 93 168 146 538 509 85
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 2 1 2 3 0
Cap, veh/h 429 298 738 2780 2376 1286
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.78 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1585 1795 3647 3618 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 168 146 538 509 85
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1585 1795 1777 1763 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 10.6 2.4 4.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 10.6 2.4 4.3 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 429 298 738 2780 2376 1286
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.56 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1119 617 951 2780 2376 1286
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.3 40.6 3.6 3.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 9.5 0.7 1.2 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.6 42.7 3.8 3.2 0.2 0.1
LnGrp LOS D D A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 261 684 594
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 3.3 0.2
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 79.2 18.9 91.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 38.9 35.9 63.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 2.0 12.6 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.9 1.2 8.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 MD
4: Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 27 633 12 18 11 626
Future Vol, veh/h 17 27 633 12 18 11 626
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Mvmt Flow 18 28 653 12 19 11 645
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1042 333 0 0 665 665 0
Stage 1 659 - - - - - -
Stage 2 383 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.9 - - 6.4 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.5 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 669 - - 551 934 -
Stage 1 482 - - - - - -
Stage 2 665 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 212 669 - - 633 633 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 341 - - - - - -
Stage 1 482 - - - - - -
Stage 2 616 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 0 1.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 488 633 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.093 0.018 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.1 11 0.8
HCM Lane LOS - - B B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group Ø2 Ø4 Ø6 Ø8
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases 2 4 6 8
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 10.0 15.0 8.0
Minimum Split (s) 25.2 40.0 25.2 18.0
Total Split (s) 45.0 44.0 45.0 21.0
Total Split (%) 41% 40% 41% 19%
Yellow Time (s) 4.2 3.6 4.2 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max None
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 14 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2 2 0 0 2 0 65 3353 0 65 3353 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 0 0 1870 0 1781 3647 0 1781 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 0 0 1870 0 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2 2 0 0 2 0 65 3353 0 65 3353 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 622 653 0 0 272 0 65 3353 0 65 3353 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 110.0 0.0 110.0 0.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.8 38.4 38.8 16.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 0.0
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group Ø1 Ø2 Ø3 Ø4 Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 12.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 11.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 39.0 11.0 40.0 11.0 41.0 11.0 42.0
Total Split (s) 12.0 28.0 12.0 18.0 12.0 28.0 12.0 18.0
Total Split (%) 17% 40% 17% 26% 17% 40% 17% 26%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min None None
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 105 3 0 105 5 0 1412 3274 0 1412 3274 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 3647 0 1781 3647 0 1781 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 3 -88 105 5 0 1412 3274 0 1412 3274 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 334 192 306 635 0 1613 3274 0 1613 3274 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 22.5 8.0 12.5 8.0 22.5 8.0 12.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 0.0
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 MD
7: Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 1 1 1 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 1 1 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 894 1083 1021 894 - 1620 - - - - -
Stage 1 1021 895 - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - 1021 895 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 894 1083 1021 894 - 1620 - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 894 - 1021 894 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 1021 895 - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - 1021 895 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1620 - - - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - - - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 59 12 15 7 8 466 17 462
Future Volume (vph) 59 12 15 7 8 466 17 462
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 34 0 54 9 527 19 556
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 13.0 23.0 15.0 25.0
Total Split (%) 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 18.6% 32.9% 21.4% 35.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.13 0.21 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.22
Control Delay 30.9 16.2 17.0 3.8 5.8 3.8 5.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.9 16.2 17.0 3.8 5.8 3.8 5.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 5 9 1 35 2 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 27 37 5 97 8 102
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 497 629 584 733 2489 660 2489
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.22
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 70
Actuated Cycle Length: 70
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 12 19 15 7 27 8 466 14 17 462 44
Future Volume (veh/h) 59 12 19 15 7 27 8 466 14 17 462 44
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1767 1767 1900 1900 1900 1900 1856 1856 1633 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 13 21 16 8 30 9 512 15 19 508 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 18 2 2
Cap, veh/h 300 82 133 104 61 123 654 2106 62 559 2025 191
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.06 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1370 608 982 277 450 909 1810 3498 102 1555 3282 309
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 0 34 54 0 0 9 258 269 19 274 282
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1370 0 1590 1636 0 0 1810 1763 1837 1555 1777 1815
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.62 0.30 0.56 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 300 0 216 289 0 0 654 1061 1106 559 1096 1120
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.25 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 621 0 588 658 0 0 842 1061 1106 742 1096 1120
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 26.7 27.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 6.5 6.5 4.8 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.5 0.0 27.1 27.3 0.0 0.0 5.1 7.0 7.0 4.8 0.5 0.5
LnGrp LOS C A C C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 99 54 536 575
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.4 27.3 7.0 0.7
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 48.7 15.6 6.8 47.6 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.4 19.5 25.9 10.4 17.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 2.0 4.4 2.3 6.8 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.3 0.0 3.8 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.6
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 MD
9: Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 0 41 4 1 4 44 468 1 4 469 23
Future Vol, veh/h 21 0 41 4 1 4 44 468 1 4 469 23
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 75 - - - - - 200 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 3 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 2 5
Mvmt Flow 22 0 42 4 1 4 45 482 1 4 484 24
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 836 1077 254 823 1089 242 508 0 0 483 0 0
Stage 1 504 504 - 573 573 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 332 573 - 250 516 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.7 6.5 6.96 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.2 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.7 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.7 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.6 4 3.33 3.5 4 3.3 2.25 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 247 221 742 269 217 765 1032 - - 1090 - -
Stage 1 498 544 - 477 507 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 634 507 - 738 538 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 236 210 742 245 207 765 1032 - - 1090 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 236 210 - 245 207 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 476 542 - 456 485 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 602 485 - 693 536 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.1 15.9 0.7 0.1
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1032 - - 236 742 341 1090 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - 0.092 0.057 0.027 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 21.8 10.1 15.9 8.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 MD
10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 182 89 214 17 81 193 314 9 351 162
Future Volume (vph) 182 89 214 17 81 193 314 9 351 162
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 95 228 18 109 205 358 10 373 172
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 5 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 8 8 5 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 13.1 39.0 13.5 40.8 40.8 13.5 30.5 13.2 39.8 39.8
Total Split (s) 13.0 33.0 12.0 20.0 20.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 17.3% 44.0% 16.0% 26.7% 26.7% 16.0% 40.0% 16.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.8 3.2 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 7.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.4 5.4
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.41 0.58 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.23
Control Delay 27.6 19.3 1.8 28.8 29.5 40.8 11.9 33.8 18.8 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.6 19.3 1.8 28.8 29.5 40.8 11.9 33.8 18.8 1.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 68 32 0 8 40 46 41 4 67 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 61 16 24 82 #101 96 18 102 17
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1368 1219 1103 587
Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 475 200 500 175
Base Capacity (vph) 329 645 1428 204 318 355 1798 117 1295 735
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.15 0.16 0.09 0.34 0.58 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.23
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 75
Actuated Cycle Length: 75
Offset: 12 (16%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 MD
10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 182 89 214 17 81 22 193 314 23 9 351 162
Future Volume (veh/h) 182 89 214 17 81 22 193 314 23 9 351 162
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1841 1722 1885 1885 1870 1856 1856 1574 1870 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 194 95 228 18 86 23 205 334 24 10 373 172
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 4 12 1 1 2 3 3 22 2 1
Cap, veh/h 362 574 1054 226 191 51 267 1444 103 19 1308 588
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.37 0.37
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1870 2745 973 1433 383 3456 3337 239 1499 3554 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 194 95 228 18 0 109 205 176 182 10 373 172
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1870 1373 973 0 1816 1728 1763 1813 1499 1777 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 2.8 4.2 1.2 0.0 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.8 0.5 5.6 5.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 2.8 4.2 1.2 0.0 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.8 0.5 5.6 5.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 362 574 1054 226 0 242 267 763 785 19 1308 588
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.17 0.22 0.08 0.00 0.45 0.77 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.29 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 362 648 1164 265 0 315 267 763 785 116 1308 588
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.8 19.0 15.5 28.7 0.0 30.0 33.9 13.4 13.4 36.8 16.7 16.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 12.6 0.7 0.7 21.4 0.5 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 1.1 1.3 0.3 0.0 1.9 2.2 1.8 1.9 0.3 2.2 2.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.4 19.1 15.6 28.8 0.0 31.3 46.5 14.1 14.1 58.2 17.3 18.0
LnGrp LOS C B B C A C D B B E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 517 127 563 555
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 30.9 25.9 18.3
Approach LOS B C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 37.9 30.0 12.0 33.0 13.0 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 * 5.4 * 7 * 6.2 * 5.4 * 6.1 * 7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.8 * 25 * 26 * 5.8 * 25 * 6.9 * 13
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 6.8 6.2 6.4 7.7 8.8 6.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 1.2 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 299 712 294 89 764 997 253 275 112 984
Future Volume (vph) 299 712 294 89 764 997 253 275 112 984
Lane Group Flow (vph) 305 727 300 91 924 1017 395 194 201 1004
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 14.4 33.0 46.0 14.4 48.0 46.0 46.0 25.1 25.1 14.4
Total Split (s) 21.0 35.0 44.0 16.0 30.0 44.0 44.0 35.0 35.0 21.0
Total Split (%) 16.2% 26.9% 33.8% 12.3% 23.1% 33.8% 33.8% 26.9% 26.9% 16.2%
Yellow Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.6 6.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max None
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.95 0.19 0.34 0.96 0.99 0.38 0.50 0.51 0.87
Control Delay 72.5 71.9 1.2 60.8 72.4 78.4 41.6 49.2 49.2 42.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 72.5 71.9 1.2 60.8 72.4 78.4 41.6 49.2 49.2 42.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 130 320 0 38 279 418 139 151 156 392
Queue Length 95th (ft) #193 #441 15 67 #375 #606 m214 235 242 500
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1043 821 1271 568
Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 375 575 425 325
Base Capacity (vph) 390 769 1595 264 959 1023 1040 387 397 1154
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.95 0.19 0.34 0.96 0.99 0.38 0.50 0.51 0.87
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 299 712 294 89 764 141 997 253 134 275 112 984
Future Volume (veh/h) 299 712 294 89 764 141 997 253 134 275 112 984
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1885 1885 1870 1885 1885 1900 1885 1885 1900 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 305 727 300 91 780 144 1017 258 137 198 231 1004
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
Cap, veh/h 357 771 1428 266 850 156 1026 669 344 409 426 1048
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3582 2812 3456 4372 801 3510 2287 1177 1810 1885 3195
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 305 727 300 91 611 313 1017 200 195 198 231 1004
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1791 1406 1728 1716 1741 1755 1791 1673 1810 1885 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.1 26.0 7.6 3.2 22.7 23.0 37.6 13.6 14.2 12.4 14.0 29.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.1 26.0 7.6 3.2 22.7 23.0 37.6 13.6 14.2 12.4 14.0 29.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 357 771 1428 266 667 338 1026 524 489 409 426 1048
V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.94 0.21 0.34 0.92 0.93 0.99 0.38 0.40 0.48 0.54 0.96
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 392 771 1428 266 667 338 1026 524 489 409 426 1048
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.4 50.2 17.6 56.9 51.3 51.4 58.6 47.7 48.0 43.7 44.4 42.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 21.1 0.3 0.6 19.5 33.2 21.3 0.1 0.1 4.1 4.9 19.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 13.8 4.3 1.4 11.5 13.0 20.8 6.6 6.4 6.0 7.1 18.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.4 71.3 18.0 57.4 70.8 84.7 79.9 47.8 48.1 47.8 49.2 62.2
LnGrp LOS E E B E E F E D D D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1332 1015 1412 1433
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.5 73.9 70.9 58.1
Approach LOS E E E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.7 31.3 44.0 16.0 35.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 24.0 38.0 10.0 28.0 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 25.0 39.6 5.2 28.0 31.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 65.0
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 924 231 34 349 75
Future Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 924 231 34 349 75
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 343 140 54 19 983 246 36 371 80
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.87 0.63 0.22 0.03 0.58 0.22 0.14 0.21 0.07
Control Delay 72.6 69.3 65.6 26.5 17.3 32.5 3.7 21.6 24.4 0.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 72.6 69.3 65.6 26.5 17.3 32.5 3.7 21.6 24.4 0.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 286 278 114 17 8 402 28 16 93 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #452 #443 174 54 m20 500 38 m36 183 7
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 417 423 449 455 553 1695 1175 256 1765 1241
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.81 0.31 0.12 0.03 0.58 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.06
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 84 (65%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 924 231 34 349 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 924 231 34 349 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 343 354 60 140 22 32 19 983 246 36 371 80
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
Cap, veh/h 430 376 64 174 67 98 554 1740 937 322 1772 1152
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.97 0.97 0.06 0.99 0.99
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1583 268 1810 699 1017 1810 3582 1610 1810 3582 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 0 414 140 0 54 19 983 246 36 371 80
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1852 1810 0 1717 1810 1791 1610 1810 1791 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 2.2 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 2.2 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 430 0 440 174 0 165 554 1740 937 322 1772 1152
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.80 0.00 0.33 0.03 0.56 0.26 0.11 0.21 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 447 451 0 428 603 1740 937 355 1772 1152
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 0.0 48.6 57.6 0.0 54.8 15.8 1.0 0.6 15.2 0.3 0.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 28.0 8.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 0.0 16.4 5.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 0.0 76.6 66.0 0.0 56.0 15.8 2.2 1.3 15.4 0.6 0.2
LnGrp LOS E A E E A E B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 757 194 1248 487
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.5 63.2 2.2 1.6
Approach LOS E E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 68.8 36.5 6.5 69.9 17.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 4.2 30.5 2.7 2.2 11.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.5 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 179 247 48 992 484 36
Future Volume (vph) 179 247 48 992 484 36
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 281 55 1127 550 41
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 46.0 30.0 30.0 84.0 54.0 46.0
Total Split (%) 35.4% 23.1% 23.1% 64.6% 41.5% 35.4%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.63 0.08 0.38 0.21 0.03
Control Delay 60.9 26.4 1.5 3.1 2.3 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 26.4 1.5 3.1 2.3 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 93 1 34 23 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 175 11 134 32 m0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 1090 644 840 2946 2608 1615
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.44 0.07 0.38 0.21 0.03
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 103 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 992 484 36
Future Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 992 484 36
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 281 55 1127 550 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 677 385 655 2626 2319 1347
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.97 0.85 0.85
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1598 1810 3705 3705 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 281 55 1127 550 41
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1598 1810 1805 1805 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 2.3 3.6 0.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 2.3 3.6 0.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 677 385 655 2626 2319 1347
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.73 0.08 0.43 0.24 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1096 577 919 2626 2319 1347
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 45.5 5.9 0.6 3.6 0.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 3.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 18.2 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 48.9 6.0 1.1 3.9 0.8
LnGrp LOS D D A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 1182 591
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.3 1.4 3.7
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 88.6 30.4 99.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 48.9 40.9 78.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 5.6 23.1 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 8.4 2.2 24.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 PM
4: Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 26 1004 40 31 36 720
Future Vol, veh/h 9 26 1004 40 31 36 720
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
Mvmt Flow 11 31 1181 47 36 42 847
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1785 614 0 0 1228 1228 0
Stage 1 1205 - - - - - -
Stage 2 580 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.9 - - 6.4 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.5 2.23 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 74 440 - - 241 558 -
Stage 1 251 - - - - - -
Stage 2 529 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 41 440 - - 333 333 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 142 - - - - - -
Stage 1 251 - - - - - -
Stage 2 292 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.7 0 8.8
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 286 333 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.144 0.127 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19.7 19.1 7.8
HCM Lane LOS - - C C A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.4 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 380 0 14 0 9 730 8 829
Future Volume (vph) 380 0 14 0 9 730 8 829
Lane Group Flow (vph) 270 256 0 25 10 864 9 997
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total Split (s) 59.0 59.0 18.0 18.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
Total Split (%) 45.4% 45.4% 13.8% 13.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.59 0.18 0.04 0.39 0.03 0.45
Control Delay 54.6 36.9 2.8 15.2 14.9 15.5 17.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.6 36.9 2.8 15.2 14.9 15.5 17.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 221 148 0 3 201 4 296
Queue Length 95th (ft) 275 206 0 14 279 m14 346
Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 704 722 179 275 2237 333 2209
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.35 0.14 0.04 0.39 0.03 0.45
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 37 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 380 0 72 14 0 8 9 730 13 8 829 28
Future Volume (veh/h) 380 0 72 14 0 8 9 730 13 8 829 28
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 520 0 0 16 0 9 10 849 15 9 964 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cap, veh/h 680 357 0 41 0 23 291 2346 41 406 2284 78
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.21 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 3619 1900 0 1109 0 624 574 3629 64 650 3533 121
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 520 0 0 25 0 0 10 422 442 9 489 508
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 0 1732 0 0 574 1805 1888 650 1791 1863
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 14.0 14.0 1.5 30.7 30.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 32.0 14.0 14.0 15.5 30.7 30.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.64 0.36 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 680 357 0 63 0 0 291 1167 1221 406 1158 1204
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.42 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1487 780 0 173 0 0 291 1167 1221 406 1158 1204
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 0.0 0.0 61.2 0.0 0.0 23.0 10.6 10.6 30.0 30.1 30.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.1 1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.6 5.8 0.3 15.1 15.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.9 0.0 0.0 65.2 0.0 0.0 23.2 11.4 11.4 30.1 31.3 31.2
LnGrp LOS D A A E A A C B B C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 520 25 874 1006
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.9 65.2 11.5 31.2
Approach LOS D E B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.2 30.0 90.2 9.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.8 53.4 46.8 13.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 34.0 19.7 32.7 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.4 4.7 5.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 184 208 240 43 98 173 461 46 660
Future Volume (vph) 184 208 240 43 98 173 461 46 660
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 229 264 47 162 190 574 51 906
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0
Total Split (s) 12.0 26.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 12.0 35.0 12.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 41.2% 14.1% 41.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.49 0.33 0.13 0.26 0.59 0.35 0.10 0.66
Control Delay 25.2 32.8 4.6 18.7 20.1 20.4 14.5 10.2 23.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.2 32.8 4.6 18.7 20.1 20.4 14.5 10.2 23.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 81 115 9 17 26 21 130 11 193
Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 176 54 36 48 #102 206 30 284
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 404 498 809 379 868 324 1646 511 1363
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.46 0.33 0.12 0.19 0.59 0.35 0.10 0.66
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 36 (42%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 184 208 240 43 98 49 173 461 61 46 660 165
Future Volume (veh/h) 184 208 240 43 98 49 173 461 61 46 660 165
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1856 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1900 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 202 229 264 47 108 54 190 507 67 51 725 181
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 4
Cap, veh/h 379 346 424 245 341 161 396 1532 202 579 1269 317
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.96 0.96 0.06 0.46 0.46
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 1610 1767 2380 1123 1795 3182 419 1810 2773 692
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 229 264 47 80 82 190 285 289 51 457 449
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1767 1805 1698 1795 1791 1810 1810 1749 1716
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 9.5 12.3 1.9 3.4 3.7 4.8 0.7 0.7 1.2 16.3 16.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 9.5 12.3 1.9 3.4 3.7 4.8 0.7 0.7 1.2 16.3 16.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 379 346 424 245 258 243 396 862 872 579 801 786
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.66 0.62 0.19 0.31 0.34 0.48 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.57 0.57
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 379 458 519 314 435 409 419 862 872 645 801 786
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.9 32.3 27.6 28.3 32.7 32.8 11.2 0.8 0.8 10.3 16.9 16.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 2.2 1.6 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.6 2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 4.4 4.7 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 6.6 6.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 34.5 29.2 28.6 33.3 33.6 11.9 1.8 1.8 10.3 19.5 19.6
LnGrp LOS C C C C C C B A A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 695 209 764 957
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 32.4 4.3 19.1
Approach LOS C C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 46.4 8.7 21.0 10.9 44.4 12.0 17.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.7 3.9 14.3 6.8 18.3 10.0 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 PM
7: Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 6 20 0 28 2 718 12 7 977 1
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 6 20 0 28 2 718 12 7 977 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 0 6 22 0 30 2 772 13 8 1051 1
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1458 1857 526 1325 1851 393 1052 0 0 785 0 0
Stage 1 1068 1068 - 783 783 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 390 789 - 542 1068 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 92 74 502 116 75 612 669 - - 843 - -
Stage 1 240 301 - 357 407 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 611 405 - 497 301 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 87 73 502 113 74 612 669 - - 843 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 87 73 - 113 74 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 239 298 - 356 406 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 579 404 - 486 298 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 27 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 669 - - 502 215 843 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - 0.013 0.24 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - 12.3 27 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - B D A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.9 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 82 8 40 10 6 547 49 807
Future Volume (vph) 82 8 40 10 6 547 49 807
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 43 0 123 7 696 59 997
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 15.0 38.0 15.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 17.6% 44.7% 17.6% 44.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.16 0.45 0.01 0.29 0.10 0.37
Control Delay 43.7 15.1 22.4 7.7 15.2 1.9 4.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.7 15.1 22.4 7.7 15.2 1.9 4.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 5 29 2 130 2 23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 85 27 66 m7 175 m5 277
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 389 535 503 554 2360 633 2666
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.08 0.24 0.01 0.29 0.09 0.37
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 12 (14%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 8 27 40 10 52 6 547 31 49 807 21
Future Volume (veh/h) 82 8 27 40 10 52 6 547 31 49 807 21
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 10 33 48 12 63 7 659 37 59 972 25
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 238 46 150 115 33 94 365 2190 123 554 2443 63
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1346 388 1281 480 285 803 1810 3475 195 1810 3596 92
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 0 43 123 0 0 7 342 354 59 488 509
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1346 0 1669 1568 0 0 1810 1805 1865 1810 1805 1883
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.6 13.6 0.8 19.6 19.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 2.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.6 13.6 0.8 19.6 19.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.77 0.39 0.51 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 0 196 243 0 0 365 1137 1175 554 1226 1280
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.22 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.40 0.40
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 490 0 509 531 0 0 564 1137 1175 663 1226 1280
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.9 0.0 34.0 35.8 0.0 0.0 6.9 17.8 17.9 5.4 18.2 18.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 0.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.9 0.2 9.6 10.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 0.0 34.5 37.4 0.0 0.0 6.9 18.5 18.5 5.5 19.1 19.1
LnGrp LOS D A C D A A A B B A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 142 123 703 1056
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.3 37.4 18.4 18.3
Approach LOS D D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 63.3 16.1 9.9 59.1 16.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.4 32.5 25.9 10.4 32.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 21.6 8.3 2.8 15.6 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.0 0.4 0.1 6.8 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.8
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2020 PM
9: Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 0 90 8 0 7 27 543 1 2 881 17
Future Vol, veh/h 23 0 90 8 0 7 27 543 1 2 881 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 75 - - - - - 200 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 27 0 107 10 0 8 32 646 1 2 1049 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1450 1774 535 1240 1784 324 1069 0 0 647 0 0
Stage 1 1063 1063 - 711 711 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 387 711 - 529 1073 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.32 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.31 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 94 84 495 134 83 678 597 - - 948 - -
Stage 1 242 302 - 395 439 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 614 439 - 506 299 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 89 79 495 101 78 678 597 - - 948 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 89 79 - 101 78 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 229 301 - 374 415 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 574 415 - 396 298 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 24.1 29 0.5 0
HCM LOS C D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 597 - - 89 495 168 948 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - - 0.308 0.216 0.106 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - - 62.5 14.3 29 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F B D A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.2 0.8 0.3 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings No-Build - 2020 PM
10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 131 95 320 45 145 244 416 6 783 200
Future Volume (vph) 131 95 320 45 145 244 416 6 783 200
Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 104 352 49 186 268 475 7 860 220
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 5 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 8 8 5 2 1 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 13.1 39.0 13.5 40.8 40.8 13.5 30.5 13.2 39.8 39.8
Total Split (s) 15.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 38.0 12.0 30.0 30.0
Total Split (%) 17.6% 41.2% 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 44.7% 14.1% 35.3% 35.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.8 3.2 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1
All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 7.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.4 5.4
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.17 0.23 0.26 0.69 0.58 0.26 0.06 0.74 0.30
Control Delay 24.6 21.5 9.3 36.0 47.4 39.1 13.3 48.8 26.0 4.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.6 21.5 9.3 36.0 47.4 39.1 13.3 48.8 26.0 4.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 39 45 23 90 70 68 2 242 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 76 66 56 #170 105 130 m12 #224 1
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1368 1219 1103 587
Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 475 200 500 175
Base Capacity (vph) 346 625 1590 200 288 546 1799 123 1168 722
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.65 0.49 0.26 0.06 0.74 0.30
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2020 PM
10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd 05/17/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 95 320 45 145 25 244 416 16 6 783 200
Future Volume (veh/h) 131 95 320 45 145 25 244 416 16 6 783 200
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1885 1900 1885 1885 1841 1870 1870 1900 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 104 352 49 159 27 268 457 18 7 860 220
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 2 0 1 0
Cap, veh/h 275 541 1095 204 197 34 357 1700 67 16 1403 631
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.78 0.78
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 2812 950 1570 267 3401 3485 137 1810 3582 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 104 352 49 0 186 268 233 242 7 860 220
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1406 950 0 1837 1700 1777 1846 1810 1791 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 3.5 7.4 4.0 0.0 8.4 6.5 6.6 6.6 0.3 8.5 3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 3.5 7.4 4.0 0.0 8.4 6.5 6.6 6.6 0.3 8.5 3.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 275 541 1095 204 0 231 357 867 900 16 1403 631
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.19 0.32 0.24 0.00 0.81 0.75 0.27 0.27 0.43 0.61 0.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 307 626 1221 230 0 281 552 867 900 123 1403 631
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 23.0 18.1 34.3 0.0 36.1 37.0 12.8 12.8 41.5 6.5 6.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 13.2 3.2 0.8 0.7 17.1 2.0 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.0 0.0 4.6 2.8 2.6 2.7 0.2 2.3 1.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 23.2 18.3 34.9 0.0 49.3 40.2 13.6 13.6 58.6 8.5 7.5
LnGrp LOS C C B C A D D B B E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 600 235 743 1087
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.8 46.3 23.2 8.6
Approach LOS C D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 46.9 31.2 15.1 38.7 13.5 17.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 * 5.4 * 7 * 6.2 * 5.4 * 6.1 * 7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.8 * 33 * 28 * 14 * 25 * 8.9 * 13
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 8.6 9.4 8.5 10.5 7.6 10.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 1.8 0.4 5.7 0.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
2019.02529
Capacity Analysis Results and Synchro Output
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
[No-Build]
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB E 60.9 0.81 175
SB D 42.3 0.69 375
EB F 168.4 1.40 725
WB E 67.2 0.96 650
Overall F 111.0 ----
NB D 52.5 0.83 225
SB D 50.8 0.80 275
EB D 41.5 0.87 400
WB C 33.1 0.64 325
Overall D 42.8 ----
NB F 121.8 1.19 800
SB F 91.5 1.12 725
EB F 140.6 1.32 725
WB F 263.0 1.48 700
Overall F 151.2 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.7 0.19 125
SB A 2.7 0.50 350
EB E 64.2 0.53 75
WB E 63.2 0.77 175
Overall A 9.5 ----
NB A 1.2 0.30 225
SB A 0.8 0.25 150
EB D 49.9 0.81 200
WB D 50.2 0.80 175
Overall B 18.1 ----
NB A 2.8 0.68 625
SB A 1.5 0.25 225
EB E 67.5 0.94 450
WB E 63.2 0.80 175
Overall C 23.1 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
2040
PM
2040
MD
02 - Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr [Signal]
2040
AM
2040
PM
2040
MD
01 - Frantz Rd & US 33/W Bridge St [Signal]
2040
AM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.9 0.44 50
SB A 0.3 0.39 50
EB D 54.5 0.15 25
WB --------
Overall A 2.0 ----
NB A 3.5 0.23 50
SB A 0.2 0.26 100
EB D 43.0 0.56 100
WB --------
Overall A 8.1 ----
NB A 1.5 0.51 175
SB A 3.8 0.28 50
EB D 47.3 0.73 200
WB --------
Overall B 10.7 ----
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 0.0 0.00 0
SB*B 12.5 0.02 0
EB --------
WB*C 17.0 0.23 25
Overall A 1.6 ----
NB A 0.0 0.00 0
SB*B 12.4 0.03 25
EB --------
WB*C 16.3 0.17 25
Overall A 1.6 ----
NB A 0.0 0.00 0
SB*D 30.8 0.22 25
EB --------
WB*F 193.3 0.89 100
Overall C 15.1 ----
*represents operations for left-turn movement only
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
2040
PM
2040
MD
04 - Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr [One-Way Stop]
2040
AM
2040
PM
2040
MD
03 - Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S [Signal]
2040
AM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 5.5 0.44 250
SB A 1.7 0.56 375
EB E 59.8 0.28 50
WB E 66.3 0.36 0
Overall A 5.1 ----
NB B 17.8 0.61 575
SB D 45.2 0.71 775
EB D 51.2 0.78 300
WB E 64.9 0.44 0
Overall D 35.9 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB B 17.4 0.84 350
SB C 23.2 0.60 275
EB C 29.1 0.60 125
WB D 43.3 0.80 150
Overall C 25.0 ----
NB D 42.8 1.20 300
SB F 92.8 1.14 625
EB D 46.6 0.90 375
WB C 28.0 0.39 75
Overall E 60.1 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
2040
PM
2040
MD data not available
06 - Frantz Rd & Rings Rd [Signal]
2040
AM
2040
PM
2040
MD data not available
05 - Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy [Signal]
2040
AM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB*A 9.8 0.01 0
SB*B 13.3 0.04 25
EB A 0.0 0.00 0
WB F 82.0 0.07 25
Overall A 0.2 ----
NB*B 14.4 0.01 0
SB*B 11.5 0.01 0
EB C 16.8 0.02 25
WB F 167.1 0.81 100
Overall A 3.0 ----
*represents operations for left-turn movement only
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB A 1.8 0.54 150
SB B 18.0 0.32 50
EB D 37.5 0.22 50
WB D 38.0 0.27 50
Overall A 9.3 ----
NB A 8.4 0.39 175
SB A 1.2 0.41 200
EB C 27.9 0.34 75
WB C 27.0 0.18 25
Overall A 7.1 ----
NB C 24.0 0.49 300
SB B 19.7 0.67 400
EB D 35.8 0.56 125
WB C 34.4 0.43 75
Overall C 22.9 ----
2040
PM
2040
MD
08 - Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave [Signal]
2040
AM
2040
PM
data not available2040
MD
07 - Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct [Two-Way Stop]
2040
AM
2019.02529
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build)
5/17/2020
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB*B 13.3 0.50 75
SB*B 12.3 0.01 0
EB F >200 3.20 175
WB B 14.3 0.01 0
Overall D 29.6 ----
NB*B 11.3 0.24 25
SB*A 9.3 0.01 0
EB F 166.9 1.60 200
WB F 58.1 0.14 25
Overall A 1.3 ----
NB*C 24.1 0.41 50
SB*B 10.3 0.01 0
EB F >200 10.95 600
WB D 29.0 0.11 25
Overall F 196.2 ----
*represents operations for left-turn movement only
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Peak
Hour Approach LOS Delay
(sec/veh)v/c 95th% Queue
Length (ft)
NB C 31.1 0.87 475
SB C 29.9 0.53 175
EB D 36.2 0.91 375
WB D 37.6 0.33 75
Overall C 32.5 ----
NB D 45.9 1.05 175
SB C 20.1 0.53 175
EB C 33.9 0.92 250
WB C 30.9 0.45 75
Overall C 33.2 ----
NB C 28.3 0.86 225
SB F 89.1 1.16 625
EB C 22.6 0.75 150
WB D 46.4 0.80 175
Overall D 54.2 ----
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
2040
PM
2040
MD
10 - Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd [Signal]
2040
AM
2040
PM
2040
MD
09 - Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave [Two-Way Stop]
2040
AM
2019.02529
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 708 984 1392 234 1005 332 168 196 214 836Future Volume (vph) 708 984 1392 234 1005 332 168 196 214 836Lane Group Flow (vph) 778 1081 1530 257 1333 365 256 193 257 919Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ovProtected Phases 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1Permitted Phases 68Detector Phase 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0Minimum Split (s) 15.7 33.0 46.1 17.4 26.0 46.1 46.1 26.0 26.0 15.7Total Split (s) 36.0 40.0 35.0 25.0 29.0 35.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 36.0Total Split (%) 27.7% 30.8% 26.9% 19.2% 22.3% 26.9% 26.9% 23.1% 23.1% 27.7%Yellow Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.6 6.5Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag LeadLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max Nonev/c Ratio 1.00 1.23 1.00 0.52 1.48 0.48 0.34 0.63 0.77 0.68Control Delay 82.0 153.4 38.7 55.6 257.8 39.3 29.6 58.9 66.8 26.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 82.0 153.4 38.7 55.6 257.8 39.3 29.6 58.9 66.8 26.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 340 ~590 ~309 104 ~561 144 85 158 218 292Queue Length 95th (ft) #476 #726 #514 149 #660 180 110 248 #349 375Internal Link Dist (ft) 1043 821 1271 568Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 375 575 425 325Base Capacity (vph) 779 881 1527 492 902 765 763 306 332 1360Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 1.00 1.23 1.00 0.52 1.48 0.48 0.34 0.63 0.77 0.68Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 36 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 145Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Splits and Phases: 1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 708 984 1392 234 1005 208 332 168 65 196 214 836Future Volume (veh/h) 708 984 1392 234 1005 208 332 168 65 196 214 836Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1900 1841 1885 1885 1870 1826 1826 1826 1885 1885Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 778 1081 1530 257 1104 229 365 185 71 215 235 919Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 4 0 4 1 1 2 5 5 5 1 1Cap, veh/h 784 888 1091 810 1149 238 453 325 120 326 354 1325Arrive On Green 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.19Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3497 2834 3401 4271 886 3456 2477 918 1739 1885 3195Grp Volume(v), veh/h 778 1081 1530 257 887 446 365 128 128 215 235 919Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1749 1417 1700 1716 1726 1728 1735 1661 1739 1885 1598Q Serve(g_s), s 29.2 33.0 33.0 8.1 33.1 33.1 13.6 9.4 9.9 14.9 15.0 24.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 29.2 33.0 33.0 8.1 33.1 33.1 13.6 9.4 9.9 14.9 15.0 24.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 784 888 1091 810 923 464 453 227 218 326 354 1325V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 1.22 1.40 0.32 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.56 0.59 0.66 0.66 0.69Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 784 888 1091 810 923 464 771 387 370 326 354 1325HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 48.5 34.7 40.8 46.8 46.9 60.6 58.5 58.8 48.9 49.0 31.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.1 108.2 186.8 0.2 21.5 33.2 1.3 0.8 0.9 10.0 9.5 3.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.7 27.5 46.3 3.4 16.7 18.3 6.4 4.4 4.4 7.3 8.0 12.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.2 156.7 221.6 41.0 68.4 80.0 61.8 59.3 59.7 58.9 58.5 34.3LnGrp LOS F F F D E F E E E E E CApproach Vol, veh/h 3389 1590 621 1369Approach Delay, s/veh 168.4 67.2 60.9 42.3Approach LOS F E E DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 41.0 23.0 37.0 40.0 30.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.5 23.0 29.0 19.0 33.0 24.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 31.2 35.1 15.6 10.1 35.0 26.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 111.0HCM 6th LOS FNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 437 65 22 1140 500Future Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 437 65 22 1140 500Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 45 124 94 53 460 68 23 1200 526Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ovProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4Permitted Phases2 2 6 6Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6Lead/LagLead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min Nonev/c Ratio 0.32 0.29 0.62 0.44 0.18 0.20 0.06 0.04 0.55 0.42Control Delay 60.7 44.3 68.0 54.0 8.3 10.7 2.4 8.3 17.1 1.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 60.7 44.3 68.0 54.0 8.3 10.7 2.4 8.3 17.1 1.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 25 102 68 14 91 0 5 295 27Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 64 160 118 31 124 10 m9 m356 m15Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 441 459 293 2245 1279 656 2195 1382Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.55 0.38Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 71 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 130Control Type: Actuated-Coordinatedm Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 437 65 22 1140 500Future Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 437 65 22 1140 500Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1870 1663 1900 1885 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 35 15 124 76 18 53 460 68 23 1200 526Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 16 0 1 0Cap, veh/h 94 66 28 160 131 31 289 2430 1090 693 2410 1167Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.89 0.89Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1262 541 1781 1462 346 1810 3554 1409 1810 3582 1610Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 50 124 0 94 53 460 68 23 1200 526Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1803 1781 0 1808 1810 1777 1409 1810 1791 1610Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.3 6.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.3 6.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 0 94 160 0 163 289 2430 1090 693 2410 1167V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.53 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.18 0.19 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.45Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 435 444 0 451 313 2430 1090 737 2410 1167HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.33Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.29 0.29 0.29Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.9 0.0 60.1 57.9 0.0 56.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.1 2.7 1.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.0 4.6 7.7 0.0 3.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 1.7 4.4 0.0 3.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.0 1.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.8 0.0 64.7 65.6 0.0 60.0 6.2 0.2 0.1 6.1 2.9 2.2LnGrp LOS E A E E A E A A A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 96 218 581 1749Approach Delay, s/veh 64.2 63.2 0.7 2.7Approach LOS E E A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 94.5 12.4 8.3 93.1 16.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 2.0 5.5 3.2 10.3 10.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 13.4 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5HCM 6th LOS ANotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 29 28 204 529 1020 208Future Volume (vph) 29 28 204 529 1020 208Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 29 213 551 1063 217Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ovProtected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4Permitted Phases 4 6 2Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0Total Split (s) 42.0 24.0 24.0 88.0 64.0 42.0Total Split (%) 32.3% 18.5% 18.5% 67.7% 49.2% 32.3%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1Lead/Lag Lead Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Nonev/c Ratio 0.12 0.08 0.43 0.19 0.42 0.16Control Delay 57.1 12.9 7.9 2.0 4.8 0.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0Total Delay 57.1 12.9 7.9 2.0 4.8 0.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 0 23 33 100 1Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 25 48 43 58 1Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400Base Capacity (vph) 955 428 552 2931 2515 1612Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 247 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.19 0.47 0.13Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 95 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 95Control Type: Actuated-CoordinatedSplits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 529 1020 208Future Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 529 1020 208Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1885 1841 1885 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 29 212 551 1062 217Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 1 4 1 0Cap, veh/h 231 190 484 2986 2727 1335Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 1560 1795 3589 3676 1610Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 29 212 551 1062 217Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1560 1795 1749 1791 1610Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 231 190 484 2986 2727 1335V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.15 0.44 0.18 0.39 0.16Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 965 527 650 2986 2727 1335HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 51.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.3 51.6 2.8 0.1 0.3 0.2LnGrp LOS E D A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 59 763 1279Approach Delay, s/veh 54.5 0.9 0.3Approach LOS D A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 104.1 13.9 116.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 58.9 36.9 82.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 2.0 4.2 2.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 24.5 0.2 8.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.0HCM 6th LOS ANotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 AM
4: Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 53 751 13 10 7 1112
Future Vol, veh/h 32 53 751 13 10 7 1112
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 3 0 0 17 1
Mvmt Flow 34 56 791 14 11 7 1171
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1420 403 0 0 804 805 0
Stage 1 798 - - - - - -
Stage 2 622 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.96 - - 6.4 4.44 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.33 - - 2.5 2.37 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 130 594 - - 450 725 -
Stage 1 409 - - - - - -
Stage 2 503 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 117 594 - - 499 499 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 249 - - - - - -
Stage 1 409 - - - - - -
Stage 2 451 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17 0 1.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 390 499 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.229 0.015 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17 12.5 1.3
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.9 0 -
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 40 1 6 0 73 1104 2 816Future Volume (vph) 40 1 6 0 73 1104 2 816Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 27 0 18 80 1213 2 1449Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 4 4 8 2 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 24.0 24.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0Total Split (%) 36.2% 36.2% 18.5% 18.5% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2Lead/LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Maxv/c Ratio 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.33 0.42 0.01 0.52Control Delay 59.7 41.6 1.4 10.0 5.4 8.0 7.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 59.7 41.6 1.4 10.0 5.4 8.0 7.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 13 0 12 106 0 161Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 45 0 59 255 m2 376Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50Base Capacity (vph) 500 483 284 242 2902 327 2769Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.33 0.42 0.01 0.52Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 77 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 125Control Type: Actuated-Coordinatedm Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 40 1 10 6 0 10 73 1104 0 2 816 502Future Volume (veh/h) 40 1 10 6 0 10 73 1104 0 2 816 502Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1900 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 23 11 7 0 11 80 1213 0 2 897 552Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2Cap, veh/h 116 83 40 19 0 30 344 2746 0 362 1650 990Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.77 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1215 581 654 0 1028 373 3647 0 468 2135 1282Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 34 18 0 0 80 1213 0 2 743 706Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 1795 1682 0 0 373 1777 0 468 1777 1640Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 15.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 15.3 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 0.39 0.61 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.78Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 116 0 123 49 0 0 344 2746 0 362 1373 1267V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.28 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.54 0.56Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 536 0 572 246 0 0 344 2746 0 362 1373 1267HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 0.0 57.5 61.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 5.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 2.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.6 0.0 60.0 66.3 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 1.2 1.5 1.8LnGrp LOS E A E E A A A A A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 62 18 1293 1451Approach Delay, s/veh 59.8 66.3 5.5 1.7Approach LOS E E A ATimer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 106.6 14.5 106.6 8.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.8 41.4 52.8 19.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.3 4.3 17.4 3.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 13.4 0.5 14.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.1HCM 6th LOS ANotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 173 101 193 124 344 363 915 45 549Future Volume (vph) 173 101 193 124 344 363 915 45 549Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 103 197 127 420 370 977 46 852Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NAProtected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0Total Split (s) 18.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 15.0 38.0 12.0 35.0Total Split (%) 20.0% 22.2% 16.7% 22.2% 24.4% 16.7% 42.2% 13.3% 38.9%Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Minv/c Ratio 0.52 0.26 0.23 0.30 0.71 0.84 0.60 0.15 0.80Control Delay 25.8 32.2 3.6 21.2 40.8 38.2 17.7 12.4 31.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 25.8 32.2 3.6 21.2 40.8 38.2 17.7 12.4 31.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 50 0 48 112 138 270 12 200Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 96 41 84 161 #362 361 29 264Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200Base Capacity (vph) 371 391 839 542 656 439 1635 326 1172Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.64 0.84 0.60 0.14 0.73Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 90Actuated Cycle Length: 90Offset: 8 (9%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 115Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 173 101 193 124 344 68 363 915 42 45 549 286Future Volume (veh/h) 173 101 193 124 344 68 363 915 42 45 549 286Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1841 1841 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1856 1856Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 103 197 127 351 69 370 934 43 46 560 292Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3Cap, veh/h 297 318 460 385 441 86 440 1675 77 372 930 484Arrive On Green 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.42 0.42Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1841 1560 1810 3013 586 1781 3459 159 1810 2241 1167Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 103 197 127 209 211 370 480 497 46 440 412Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1560 1810 1805 1795 1781 1777 1842 1810 1763 1645Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 4.4 9.2 5.3 10.0 10.3 10.9 13.5 13.5 1.2 17.5 17.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 4.4 9.2 5.3 10.0 10.3 10.9 13.5 13.5 1.2 17.5 17.6Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.71Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 318 460 385 264 263 440 860 892 372 732 683V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.32 0.43 0.33 0.79 0.80 0.84 0.56 0.56 0.12 0.60 0.60Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 318 460 564 331 329 440 860 892 436 732 683HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 32.6 25.6 29.1 37.1 37.2 15.0 10.7 10.7 13.4 20.5 20.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 9.8 11.0 13.4 2.6 2.5 0.1 3.1 3.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 2.0 3.3 2.3 5.0 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.8 0.5 7.4 7.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 33.2 26.2 29.5 46.9 48.2 28.4 13.3 13.2 13.5 23.6 23.8LnGrp LOS C C C C D D C B B B C CApproach Vol, veh/h 477 547 1347 898Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 43.3 17.4 23.2Approach LOS C D B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 49.1 11.1 21.1 15.0 42.9 13.5 18.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 32.5 16.0 14.5 11.0 29.5 14.0 16.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 15.5 7.3 11.2 12.9 19.6 9.5 12.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 AM
7: Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 1358 19 18 838 3
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 1358 19 18 838 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 2 0 1 7 1476 21 20 911 3
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1705 2464 457 1997 2455 749 914 0 0 1497 0 0
Stage 1 953 953 - 1501 1501 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 752 1511 - 496 954 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 60 31 556 36 31 359 754 - - 454 - -
Stage 1 282 340 - 130 187 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 373 185 - 529 340 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 57 29 556 35 29 359 754 - - 454 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 57 29 - 35 29 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 279 325 - 129 185 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 368 183 - 506 325 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 82 0 0.3
HCM LOS A F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 754 - - - 50 454 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - 0.065 0.043 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 0 82 13.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 0.1 - -
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 48 3 13 11 34 1198 32 576Future Volume (vph) 48 3 13 11 34 1198 32 576Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 5 0 61 36 1315 34 743Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NAProtected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 38.0 20.0 38.0Total Split (%) 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 22.2% 42.2% 22.2% 42.2%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5Lead/LagLead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Minv/c Ratio 0.26 0.02 0.28 0.06 0.51 0.10 0.30Control Delay 39.2 29.2 22.4 2.5 5.6 2.3 3.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 39.2 29.2 22.4 2.5 5.6 2.3 3.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 2 14 3 118 2 33Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 12 49 m7 m160 m6 58Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145Base Capacity (vph) 482 515 488 730 2572 491 2470Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.51 0.07 0.30Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 90Actuated Cycle Length: 90Offset: 55.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 85Control Type: Actuated-Coordinatedm Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 48 3 2 13 11 33 34 1198 39 32 576 122Future Volume (veh/h) 48 3 2 13 11 33 34 1198 39 32 576 122Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1856 1841 1841Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 3 2 14 12 35 36 1274 41 34 613 130Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4Cap, veh/h 234 112 75 71 52 100 520 2374 76 436 1921 406Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.22 0.22Sat Flow, veh/h 1337 1063 709 211 496 952 1810 3542 114 1767 2872 608Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 0 5 61 0 0 36 644 671 34 373 370Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1337 0 1772 1660 0 0 1810 1791 1865 1767 1749 1731Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 16.1 16.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 16.1 16.1Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 0.23 0.57 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.35Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 0 186 224 0 0 520 1200 1250 436 1169 1158V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.32 0.32Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 0 510 518 0 0 746 1200 1250 660 1169 1158HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 0.0 36.1 37.4 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 17.9 17.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.1 0.7 0.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.2 7.7 7.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 0.0 36.2 38.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 1.7 1.7 4.0 18.6 18.6LnGrp LOS D A D D A A A A A A B BApproach Vol, veh/h 56 61 1351 777Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 38.0 1.8 18.0Approach LOS D D A BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 65.7 15.6 8.6 65.8 15.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.4 32.5 25.9 15.4 32.5 25.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 18.1 4.4 2.5 2.0 5.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.1 0.0 19.4 0.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 AM
9: Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 29.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 0 68 0 0 1 384 1264 5 6 515 172
Future Vol, veh/h 44 0 68 0 0 1 384 1264 5 6 515 172
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 75 - - - - - 200 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 24 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 0
Mvmt Flow 48 0 75 0 0 1 422 1389 5 7 566 189
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2214 2913 378 2533 3005 697 755 0 0 1394 0 0
Stage 1 675 675 - 2236 2236 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 1539 2238 - 297 769 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 7.38 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.14 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.54 3.5 4 3.3 2.22 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 25 16 561 14 14 388 851 - - 497 - -
Stage 1 415 456 - 45 80 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 123 80 - 693 413 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 15 8 561 7 7 388 851 - - 497 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 15 8 - 7 7 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 209 450 - 23 40 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 62 40 - 592 407 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 604.2 14.3 3.1 0.1
HCM LOS F B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 851 - - 15 561 388 497 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.496 - - 3.223 0.133 0.003 0.013 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 - -$ 1518.8 12.4 14.3 12.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F B B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 - - 6.8 0.5 0 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 AM10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 13Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 323 139 349 6 54 334 1168 22 392 80Future Volume (vph) 323 139 349 6 54 334 1168 22 392 80Lane Group Flow (vph) 347 149 375 6 67 359 1269 24 422 86Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 5 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 86Detector Phase 7 4 5 8 8 5 2 1 6 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 13.1 39.0 13.5 40.8 40.8 13.5 30.5 13.2 39.8 39.8Total Split (s) 16.0 38.0 17.0 22.0 22.0 17.0 40.0 12.0 35.0 35.0Total Split (%) 17.8% 42.2% 18.9% 24.4% 24.4% 18.9% 44.4% 13.3% 38.9% 38.9%Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.8 3.2 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.3Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 7.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.4 5.4Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Maxv/c Ratio 1.09 0.31 0.25 0.05 0.31 0.66 0.66 0.18 0.33 0.12Control Delay 109.3 27.2 1.8 36.2 37.4 42.0 19.9 33.9 34.1 3.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 109.3 27.2 1.8 36.2 37.4 42.0 19.9 33.9 34.1 3.8Queue Length 50th (ft) ~177 65 2 3 32 97 233 13 122 0Queue Length 95th (ft) #372 112 23 14 70 146 #487 38 174 20Internal Link Dist (ft) 1368 1219 1103 587Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 475 200 500 175Base Capacity (vph) 317 654 1530 179 310 540 1936 136 1286 698Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 1.09 0.23 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.18 0.33 0.12Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 90Actuated Cycle Length: 90Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of GreenNatural Cycle: 110Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Splits and Phases: 10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 AM10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 14Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 323 139 349 6 54 8 334 1168 12 22 392 80Future Volume (veh/h) 323 139 349 6 54 8 334 1168 12 22 392 80Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1900 1841 1648 1900 1900 1856 1885 1885 1900 1811 1811Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 347 149 375 6 58 9 359 1256 13 24 422 86Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 4 17 0 0 3 1 1 0 6 6Cap, veh/h 380 549 1123 166 178 28 411 1741 18 45 1323 590Arrive On Green 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.13 0.13Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1900 2745 774 1606 249 3428 3632 38 1810 3441 1535Grp Volume(v), veh/h 347 149 375 6 0 67 359 619 650 24 422 86Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1900 1373 774 0 1855 1714 1791 1878 1810 1721 1535Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 5.4 8.4 0.6 0.0 3.0 9.3 24.8 24.8 1.2 10.0 4.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 5.4 8.4 0.6 0.0 3.0 9.3 24.8 24.8 1.2 10.0 4.5Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 549 1123 166 0 206 411 859 900 45 1323 590V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.27 0.33 0.04 0.00 0.33 0.87 0.72 0.72 0.53 0.32 0.15Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 380 654 1275 209 0 309 411 859 900 117 1323 590HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.4 24.7 18.2 35.8 0.0 36.9 38.9 18.6 18.6 44.1 28.6 26.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.9 18.2 5.2 5.0 9.2 0.6 0.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 2.3 2.7 0.1 0.0 1.4 4.8 10.6 11.1 0.6 4.6 1.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 25.0 18.4 35.9 0.0 37.8 57.1 23.9 23.6 53.3 29.2 26.7LnGrp LOS E C B D A D E C C D C CApproach Vol, veh/h 871 73 1628 532Approach Delay, s/veh 36.2 37.6 31.1 29.9Approach LOS D D C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 48.5 33.0 17.0 40.0 16.0 17.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 * 5.4 * 7 * 6.2 * 5.4 * 6.1 * 7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.8 * 35 * 31 * 11 * 30 * 9.9 * 15Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 26.8 10.4 11.3 12.0 11.9 5.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 2.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.5HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 163 759 384 178 883 480 228 281 126 318Future Volume (vph) 163 759 384 178 883 480 228 281 126 318Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 799 404 187 1173 505 384 210 219 335Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ovProtected Phases 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1Permitted Phases 68Detector Phase 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0Minimum Split (s) 14.4 33.0 46.1 14.4 48.0 46.1 46.1 20.0 20.0 14.4Total Split (s) 20.0 36.0 30.0 20.0 36.0 30.0 30.0 24.0 24.0 20.0Total Split (%) 18.2% 32.7% 27.3% 18.2% 32.7% 27.3% 27.3% 21.8% 21.8% 18.2%Yellow Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.6 6.5Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag LeadLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max Nonev/c Ratio 0.53 0.87 0.26 0.45 0.78 0.74 0.52 0.67 0.68 0.32Control Delay 53.2 50.6 1.2 48.3 38.1 44.2 27.2 54.1 54.3 15.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 53.2 50.6 1.2 48.3 38.1 44.2 27.2 54.1 54.3 15.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 284 0 63 263 98 46 149 156 51Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 #388 13 100 333 230 153 #264 #275 88Internal Link Dist (ft) 1043 821 1271 568Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 375 575 425 325Base Capacity (vph) 425 915 1573 416 1499 749 805 315 323 1108Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.87 0.26 0.45 0.78 0.67 0.48 0.67 0.68 0.30Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 110Actuated Cycle Length: 110Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 130Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Splits and Phases: 1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 163 759 384 178 883 232 480 228 137 281 126 318Future Volume (veh/h) 163 759 384 178 883 232 480 228 137 281 126 318Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1841 1870 1796 1841 1841 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 172 799 404 187 929 244 505 240 144 214 247 335Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 4 2 7 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 2Cap, veh/h 237 922 1228 561 1464 383 610 383 221 298 310 746Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.17Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3497 2790 3319 3966 1038 3456 2168 1254 1781 1856 3170Grp Volume(v), veh/h 172 799 404 187 784 389 505 195 189 214 247 335Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1749 1395 1659 1675 1654 1728 1777 1645 1781 1856 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 24.0 10.4 5.5 21.2 21.3 15.9 11.8 12.4 12.5 14.1 9.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 24.0 10.4 5.5 21.2 21.3 15.9 11.8 12.4 12.5 14.1 9.9Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 237 922 1228 561 1236 610 610 314 290 298 310 746V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.87 0.33 0.33 0.63 0.64 0.83 0.62 0.65 0.72 0.80 0.45Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 427 922 1228 561 1236 610 754 388 359 298 310 746HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 38.7 20.2 40.3 28.6 28.6 50.1 48.2 48.5 43.3 44.0 36.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 10.8 0.7 0.3 2.5 5.0 4.8 0.7 1.3 13.9 18.8 2.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 11.4 4.7 2.2 8.7 9.1 7.8 5.7 5.6 6.6 8.0 4.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.4 49.4 20.9 40.5 31.1 33.6 54.9 48.9 49.8 57.2 62.8 37.9LnGrp LOS D D C D C C D D D E E DApproach Vol, veh/h 1375 1360 889 796Approach Delay, s/veh 41.5 33.1 52.5 50.8Approach LOS D C D DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 46.6 25.4 24.6 36.0 24.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 30.0 24.0 14.0 29.0 18.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 23.3 17.9 7.5 26.0 16.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.2 1.5 0.2 2.4 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.8HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 232 84 178 88 50 518 130 23 413 131Future Volume (vph) 232 84 178 88 50 518 130 23 413 131Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 195 189 118 53 551 138 24 439 139Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ovProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4Permitted Phases2 2 6 6Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 38.0Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 37.0 10.0 26.0 37.0Total Split (%) 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 33.6% 9.1% 23.6% 33.6% 9.1% 23.6% 33.6%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6Lead/LagLead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min Nonev/c Ratio 0.68 0.63 0.66 0.39 0.11 0.34 0.12 0.05 0.29 0.14Control Delay 54.1 46.2 53.6 39.5 17.1 23.8 5.4 13.4 19.8 0.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 54.1 46.2 53.6 39.5 17.1 23.8 5.4 13.4 19.8 0.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 141 121 126 67 20 148 0 7 90 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 206 186 187 115 54 237 45 m21 150 m0Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185Base Capacity (vph) 484 499 531 545 503 1631 1322 451 1527 1138Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.39 0.36 0.22 0.11 0.34 0.10 0.05 0.29 0.12Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 110Actuated Cycle Length: 110Offset: 53 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 115Control Type: Actuated-Coordinatedm Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 232 84 55 178 88 23 50 518 130 23 413 131Future Volume (veh/h) 232 84 55 178 88 23 50 518 130 23 413 131Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1856 1885 1900 1841 1856Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 198 158 59 189 94 24 53 551 138 24 439 139Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 3Cap, veh/h 267 196 73 236 190 49 560 1824 1035 495 1764 1027Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1319 492 1810 1460 373 1810 3526 1598 1810 3497 1572Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 0 217 189 0 118 53 551 138 24 439 139Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1811 1810 0 1833 1810 1763 1598 1810 1749 1572Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 0.0 12.7 11.2 0.0 6.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 0.0 12.7 11.2 0.0 6.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 267 0 270 236 0 239 560 1824 1035 495 1764 1027V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.81 0.80 0.00 0.49 0.09 0.30 0.13 0.05 0.25 0.14Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 513 0 517 533 0 540 592 1824 1035 550 1764 1027HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.91 0.91 0.91Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 0.0 45.3 46.5 0.0 44.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.0 0.0 5.6 6.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 0.0 6.1 5.5 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 0.0 50.9 52.7 0.0 46.1 11.6 0.4 0.3 12.1 0.3 0.2LnGrp LOS D A D D A D B A A B A AApproach Vol, veh/h 415 307 742 602Approach Delay, s/veh 49.9 50.2 1.2 0.8Approach LOS D D A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 62.5 22.0 8.0 61.1 18.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 20.4 31.4 6.0 20.4 32.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 2.0 14.7 3.5 2.0 13.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 1.6 0.0 3.1 1.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.1HCM 6th LOS BNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 88 160 139 613 581 81Future Volume (vph) 88 160 139 613 581 81Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 168 146 645 612 85Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ovProtected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4Permitted Phases 4 6 2Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0Total Split (s) 41.0 25.0 25.0 69.0 44.0 41.0Total Split (%) 37.3% 22.7% 22.7% 62.7% 40.0% 37.3%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1Lead/Lag Lead Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Nonev/c Ratio 0.29 0.40 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.06Control Delay 49.0 16.8 2.9 2.5 5.9 1.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 49.0 16.8 2.9 2.5 5.9 1.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 34 15 41 78 5Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 93 28 56 91 12Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400Base Capacity (vph) 1109 583 780 2881 2437 1615Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.05Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 110Actuated Cycle Length: 110Offset: 73 (66%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 95Control Type: Actuated-CoordinatedSplits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 88 160 139 613 581 81Future Volume (veh/h) 88 160 139 613 581 81Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1870 1885 1870 1856 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 93 168 146 645 612 85Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 2 1 2 3 0Cap, veh/h 429 298 687 2780 2376 1286Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.78 1.00 1.00Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1585 1795 3647 3618 1610Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 168 146 645 612 85Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1585 1795 1777 1763 1610Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 10.6 2.4 5.3 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 10.6 2.4 5.3 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 429 298 687 2780 2376 1286V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.56 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.07Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1119 617 900 2780 2376 1286HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.3 40.6 3.6 3.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 9.5 0.7 1.5 0.1 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.6 42.7 3.8 3.4 0.2 0.1LnGrp LOS D D A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 261 791 697Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 3.5 0.2Approach LOS D A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 79.2 18.9 91.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 38.9 35.9 63.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 2.0 12.6 7.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 9.7 1.2 10.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1HCM 6th LOS ANotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 MD
4: Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 32 760 19 22 13 751
Future Vol, veh/h 31 32 760 19 22 13 751
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Mvmt Flow 32 33 784 20 23 13 774
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1253 402 0 0 803 804 0
Stage 1 794 - - - - - -
Stage 2 459 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.9 - - 6.4 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.5 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 167 604 - - 451 829 -
Stage 1 411 - - - - - -
Stage 2 609 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 147 604 - - 521 521 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 278 - - - - - -
Stage 1 411 - - - - - -
Stage 2 535 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.3 0 2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 383 521 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.17 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.3 12.4 1.5
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7Lane Group Ø2 Ø4 Ø6 Ø8Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph)Future Volume (vph)Lane Group Flow (vph)Turn TypeProtected Phases 2 4 6 8Permitted PhasesDetector PhaseSwitch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 15.0 10.0 15.0 8.0Minimum Split (s) 25.2 40.0 25.2 18.0Total Split (s) 45.0 44.0 45.0 21.0Total Split (%) 41% 40% 41% 19%Yellow Time (s) 4.2 3.6 4.2 3.0All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s)Total Lost Time (s)Lead/LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Nonev/c RatioControl DelayQueue DelayTotal DelayQueue Length 50th (ft)Queue Length 95th (ft)Internal Link Dist (ft)Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph)Starvation Cap ReductnSpillback Cap ReductnStorage Cap ReductnReduced v/c RatioIntersection SummaryCycle Length: 110Actuated Cycle Length: 110Offset: 14 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 85Control Type: Actuated-CoordinatedSplits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 2 2 0 0 2 0 65 3353 0 65 3353 0Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 0 0 1870 0 1781 3647 0 1781 3647 0Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 0 0 1870 0 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2 2 0 0 2 0 65 3353 0 65 3353 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 622 653 0 0 272 0 65 3353 0 65 3353 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Approach LOSTimer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 110.0 0.0 110.0 0.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.8 38.4 38.8 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 0.0HCM 6th LOS ANotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9Lane Group Ø1 Ø2 Ø3 Ø4 Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph)Future Volume (vph)Lane Group Flow (vph)Turn TypeProtected Phases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Permitted PhasesDetector PhaseSwitch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 12.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 11.0Minimum Split (s) 11.0 39.0 11.0 40.0 11.0 41.0 11.0 42.0Total Split (s) 12.0 28.0 12.0 18.0 12.0 28.0 12.0 18.0Total Split (%) 17% 40% 17% 26% 17% 40% 17% 26%Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s)Total Lost Time (s)Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None C-Min None None None C-Min None Nonev/c RatioControl DelayQueue DelayTotal DelayQueue Length 50th (ft)Queue Length 95th (ft)Internal Link Dist (ft)Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph)Starvation Cap ReductnSpillback Cap ReductnStorage Cap ReductnReduced v/c RatioIntersection SummaryCycle Length: 70Actuated Cycle Length: 70Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 105Control Type: Actuated-CoordinatedSplits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 105 3 0 105 5 0 1412 3274 0 1412 3274 0Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 3647 0 1781 3647 0 1781 3647 0Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 3 -88 105 5 0 1412 3274 0 1412 3274 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 334 192 306 635 0 1613 3274 0 1613 3274 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Approach LOSTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 22.5 8.0 12.5 8.0 22.5 8.0 12.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 0.0HCM 6th LOS ANotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 MD
7: Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 1 1 1 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 1 1 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 894 1083 1021 894 - 1620 - - - - -
Stage 1 1021 895 - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - 1021 895 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 894 1083 1021 894 - 1620 - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 894 - 1021 894 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 1021 895 - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - 1021 895 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1620 - - - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - - - -
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 94 12 15 7 13 746 17 739Future Volume (vph) 94 12 15 7 13 746 17 739Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 46 0 54 14 835 19 889Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NAProtected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 13.0 23.0 15.0 25.0Total Split (%) 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 18.6% 32.9% 21.4% 35.7%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5Lead/LagLead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Minv/c Ratio 0.46 0.15 0.19 0.03 0.34 0.04 0.37Control Delay 32.5 13.0 15.4 4.6 7.4 4.6 7.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 32.5 13.0 15.4 4.6 7.4 4.6 7.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 5 9 2 65 2 69Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 28 35 8 181 9 193Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145Base Capacity (vph) 497 632 584 543 2429 514 2429Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.34 0.04 0.37Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 70Actuated Cycle Length: 70Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 85Control Type: Actuated-CoordinatedSplits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 94 12 30 15 7 27 13 746 14 17 739 70Future Volume (veh/h) 94 12 30 15 7 27 13 746 14 17 739 70Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1767 1767 1900 1900 1900 1900 1856 1856 1633 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 13 33 16 8 30 14 820 15 19 812 77Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 18 2 2Cap, veh/h 306 62 157 106 62 127 526 2117 39 425 1983 188Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.06 1.00 1.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1370 442 1122 280 445 907 1810 3542 65 1555 3280 311Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 0 46 54 0 0 14 408 427 19 440 449Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1370 0 1565 1632 0 0 1810 1763 1844 1555 1777 1814Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.5 8.5 0.3 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.5 8.5 0.3 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.72 0.30 0.56 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 0 219 295 0 0 526 1053 1102 425 1074 1097V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.00 0.21 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.41 0.41Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 621 0 579 656 0 0 700 1053 1102 608 1074 1097HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 0.0 26.7 26.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 7.4 7.4 5.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.2 1.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.8 2.9 0.1 0.3 0.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.2 0.0 27.1 27.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 8.5 8.4 5.3 1.2 1.1LnGrp LOS C A C C A A A A A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 149 54 849 908Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 27.0 8.4 1.2Approach LOS C C A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 47.8 15.9 6.8 47.3 15.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.4 19.5 25.9 10.4 17.5 25.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.0 6.3 2.3 10.5 3.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.0 0.5 0.0 4.3 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 MD
9: Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 21.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 84 0 164 5 1 5 176 749 1 5 750 92
Future Vol, veh/h 84 0 164 5 1 5 176 749 1 5 750 92
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 75 - - - - - 200 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 3 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 2 5
Mvmt Flow 87 0 169 5 1 5 181 772 1 5 773 95
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1580 1966 434 1532 2013 387 868 0 0 773 0 0
Stage 1 831 831 - 1135 1135 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 749 1135 - 397 878 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.7 6.5 6.96 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.2 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.7 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.7 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.6 4 3.33 3.5 4 3.3 2.25 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 68 64 567 81 59 617 753 - - 851 - -
Stage 1 314 387 - 219 280 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 352 280 - 605 368 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 54 48 567 46 45 617 753 - - 851 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 54 48 - 46 45 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 239 385 - 166 213 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 264 213 - 422 366 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 166.9 58.1 2.1 0.1
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 753 - - 54 567 79 851 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.241 - - 1.604 0.298 0.144 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - -$ 465.5 14 58.1 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F B F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 8.1 1.2 0.5 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 MD10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 13Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 291 89 342 17 81 309 502 9 562 259Future Volume (vph) 291 89 342 17 81 309 502 9 562 259Lane Group Flow (vph) 310 95 364 18 109 329 558 10 598 276Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 5 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 86Detector Phase 7 4 5 8 8 5 2 1 6 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 13.1 39.0 13.5 40.8 40.8 13.5 30.5 13.2 39.8 39.8Total Split (s) 12.0 32.0 13.0 20.0 20.0 13.0 30.0 13.0 30.0 30.0Total Split (%) 16.0% 42.7% 17.3% 26.7% 26.7% 17.3% 40.0% 17.3% 40.0% 40.0%Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.8 3.2 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.3Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 7.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.4 5.4Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Maxv/c Ratio 1.00 0.19 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.73 0.30 0.08 0.48 0.37Control Delay 78.6 20.1 5.6 28.8 29.5 44.7 12.5 33.2 21.3 4.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 78.6 20.1 5.6 28.8 29.5 44.7 12.5 33.2 21.3 4.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 33 25 8 40 77 68 4 116 0Queue Length 95th (ft) #257 63 48 24 82 #165 152 18 164 49Internal Link Dist (ft) 1368 1219 1103 587Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 475 200 500 175Base Capacity (vph) 310 621 1443 204 318 451 1835 134 1234 737Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 1.00 0.15 0.25 0.09 0.34 0.73 0.30 0.07 0.48 0.37Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 75Actuated Cycle Length: 75Offset: 13 (17%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 110Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Splits and Phases: 10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 MD10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 14Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 291 89 342 17 81 22 309 502 23 9 562 259Future Volume (veh/h) 291 89 342 17 81 22 309 502 23 9 562 259Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1841 1722 1885 1885 1870 1856 1856 1574 1870 1885Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 310 95 364 18 86 23 329 534 24 10 598 276Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 4 12 1 1 2 3 3 22 2 1Cap, veh/h 338 549 1054 211 191 51 313 1533 69 19 1308 588Arrive On Green 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.01 0.37 0.37Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1870 2745 859 1433 383 3456 3436 154 1499 3554 1598Grp Volume(v), veh/h 310 95 364 18 0 109 329 274 284 10 598 276Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1870 1373 859 0 1816 1728 1763 1828 1499 1777 1598Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 2.8 7.1 1.4 0.0 4.2 6.8 7.6 7.7 0.5 9.6 9.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 2.8 7.1 1.4 0.0 4.2 6.8 7.6 7.7 0.5 9.6 9.9Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 338 549 1054 211 0 242 313 786 815 19 1308 588V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.17 0.35 0.09 0.00 0.45 1.05 0.35 0.35 0.53 0.46 0.47Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 338 623 1164 245 0 315 313 786 815 136 1308 588HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 19.7 16.4 28.8 0.0 30.0 34.1 13.6 13.6 36.8 18.0 18.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 28.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 64.6 1.2 1.2 21.4 1.2 2.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 1.1 2.2 0.3 0.0 1.9 5.5 3.0 3.1 0.3 3.8 3.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.5 19.9 16.6 28.9 0.0 31.3 98.7 14.8 14.8 58.2 19.2 20.8LnGrp LOS E B B C A C F B B E B CApproach Vol, veh/h 769 127 887 884Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 30.9 45.9 20.1Approach LOS C C D CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 38.9 29.0 13.0 33.0 12.0 17.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 * 5.4 * 7 * 6.2 * 5.4 * 6.1 * 7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 6.8 * 25 * 25 * 6.8 * 25 * 5.9 * 13Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 9.7 9.1 8.8 11.9 7.9 6.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 1.7 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.2HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 359 997 353 107 1222 1196 304 330 134 1181Future Volume (vph) 359 997 353 107 1222 1196 304 330 134 1181Lane Group Flow (vph) 366 1017 360 109 1419 1220 474 233 241 1205Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ovProtected Phases 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1Permitted Phases 68Detector Phase 1 6 4 5 2 4 4 8 8 1Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0Minimum Split (s) 14.4 33.0 46.0 14.4 48.0 46.0 46.0 25.1 25.1 14.4Total Split (s) 21.0 35.0 44.0 16.0 30.0 44.0 44.0 35.0 35.0 21.0Total Split (%) 16.2% 26.9% 33.8% 12.3% 23.1% 33.8% 33.8% 26.9% 26.9% 16.2%Yellow Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.6 6.5Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag LeadLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None C-Max None None C-Max None None Max Max Nonev/c Ratio 0.94 1.32 0.22 0.41 1.50 1.19 0.46 0.60 0.61 1.04Control Delay 89.6 194.4 1.2 62.3 267.7 140.1 45.0 52.6 52.6 73.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 89.6 194.4 1.2 62.3 267.7 140.1 45.0 52.6 52.6 73.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 160 ~582 0 45 ~606 ~624 177 186 193 ~582Queue Length 95th (ft) #256 #717 15 77 #705 #798 m255 281 289 #734Internal Link Dist (ft) 1043 821 1271 568Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 375 575 425 325Base Capacity (vph) 390 769 1624 264 945 1023 1040 387 397 1154Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 1.32 0.22 0.41 1.50 1.19 0.46 0.60 0.61 1.04Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 145Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM1: Frantz Rd & SR 161/W Bridge St05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 359 997 353 107 1222 169 1196 304 161 330 134 1181Future Volume (veh/h) 359 997 353 107 1222 169 1196 304 161 330 134 1181Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1885 1885 1870 1885 1885 1900 1885 1885 1900 1885 1885Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 366 1017 360 109 1247 172 1220 310 164 237 277 1205Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1Cap, veh/h 392 771 1428 266 844 116 1026 668 345 409 426 1079Arrive On Green 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.23Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3582 2812 3456 4572 631 3510 2284 1180 1810 1885 3195Grp Volume(v), veh/h 366 1017 360 109 936 483 1220 242 232 237 277 1205Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1791 1406 1728 1716 1772 1755 1791 1673 1810 1885 1598Q Serve(g_s), s 13.4 28.0 9.4 3.9 24.0 24.0 38.0 16.6 17.1 15.2 17.3 29.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.4 28.0 9.4 3.9 24.0 24.0 38.0 16.6 17.1 15.2 17.3 29.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 392 771 1428 266 633 327 1026 524 489 409 426 1079V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 1.32 0.25 0.41 1.48 1.48 1.19 0.46 0.48 0.58 0.65 1.12Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 392 771 1428 266 633 327 1026 524 489 409 426 1079HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 51.0 18.1 57.2 53.0 53.0 58.7 49.1 49.3 44.8 45.6 43.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.3 152.3 0.4 0.8 223.3 230.7 91.2 0.1 0.2 5.9 7.5 65.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 28.7 5.3 1.7 29.9 31.5 30.9 8.0 7.7 7.4 8.9 26.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.6 203.3 18.5 57.9 276.3 283.7 149.9 49.2 49.5 50.7 53.1 108.4LnGrp LOS F F B E F F F D D D D FApproach Vol, veh/h 1743 1528 1694 1719Approach Delay, s/veh 140.6 263.0 121.8 91.5Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 30.0 44.0 16.0 35.0 35.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 24.0 38.0 10.0 28.0 29.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.4 26.0 40.0 5.9 30.0 31.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 151.2HCM 6th LOS FNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 1109 231 34 419 75Future Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 1109 231 34 419 75Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 343 140 54 19 1180 246 36 446 80Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ovProtected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4Permitted Phases2 2 6 6Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6Lead/LagLead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min Nonev/c Ratio 0.89 0.88 0.63 0.22 0.04 0.69 0.23 0.18 0.25 0.07Control Delay 74.1 70.6 65.6 26.5 12.8 29.9 2.6 22.6 25.6 0.9Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 74.1 70.6 65.6 26.5 12.8 29.9 2.6 22.6 25.6 0.9Queue Length 50th (ft) 290 283 114 17 6 492 29 16 112 0Queue Length 95th (ft) #452 #443 174 54 m15 #620 13 m35 216 m7Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 449 455 508 1703 1165 199 1772 1241Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.82 0.31 0.12 0.04 0.69 0.21 0.18 0.25 0.06Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 84 (65%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 130Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 1109 231 34 419 75Future Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 1109 231 34 419 75Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1856Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 343 354 60 140 22 32 19 1180 246 36 446 80Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3Cap, veh/h 430 376 64 174 67 98 523 1740 937 281 1772 1152Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.97 0.97 0.06 0.99 0.99Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1583 268 1810 699 1017 1810 3582 1610 1810 3582 1572Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 0 414 140 0 54 19 1180 246 36 446 80Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1852 1810 0 1717 1810 1791 1610 1810 1791 1572Q Serve(g_s), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 3.5 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 3.5 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 430 0 440 174 0 165 523 1740 937 281 1772 1152V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.80 0.00 0.33 0.04 0.68 0.26 0.13 0.25 0.07Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 447 451 0 428 572 1740 937 314 1772 1152HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.93Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 0.0 48.6 57.6 0.0 54.8 15.8 1.0 0.6 15.3 0.3 0.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 28.0 8.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 0.0 16.4 5.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 0.0 76.6 66.0 0.0 56.0 15.8 2.9 1.2 15.5 0.7 0.2LnGrp LOS E A E E A E B A A B A AApproach Vol, veh/h 757 194 1445 562Approach Delay, s/veh 67.5 63.2 2.8 1.5Approach LOS E E A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 68.8 36.5 6.5 69.9 17.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 5.5 30.5 2.7 2.2 11.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.9 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.1HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 179 247 48 1190 581 36Future Volume (vph) 179 247 48 1190 581 36Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 281 55 1352 660 41Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ovProtected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4Permitted Phases 4 6 2Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0Total Split (s) 46.0 30.0 30.0 84.0 54.0 46.0Total Split (%) 35.4% 23.1% 23.1% 64.6% 41.5% 35.4%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1Lead/Lag Lead Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Nonev/c Ratio 0.56 0.66 0.09 0.46 0.26 0.03Control Delay 60.9 35.8 1.7 3.0 2.8 0.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 60.9 35.8 1.7 3.0 2.8 0.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 139 1 42 31 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 207 m12 167 49 m0Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400Base Capacity (vph) 1090 609 779 2946 2563 1613Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.46 0.07 0.46 0.26 0.03Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 103 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 95Control Type: Actuated-Coordinatedm Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 1190 581 36Future Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 1190 581 36Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 281 55 1352 660 41Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0Cap, veh/h 677 385 599 2626 2319 1347Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.97 0.85 0.85Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1598 1810 3705 3705 1610Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 281 55 1352 660 41Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1598 1810 1805 1805 1610Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 3.2 4.6 0.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 3.2 4.6 0.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 677 385 599 2626 2319 1347V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.73 0.09 0.51 0.28 0.03Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1096 577 863 2626 2319 1347HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 45.5 5.9 0.6 3.7 0.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 3.4 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 18.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 48.9 6.0 1.4 4.0 0.8LnGrp LOS D D A A A AApproach Vol, veh/h 484 1407 701Approach Delay, s/veh 47.3 1.5 3.8Approach LOS D A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 88.6 30.4 99.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 48.9 40.9 78.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 6.6 23.1 5.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 10.4 2.2 33.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7HCM 6th LOS BNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 PM
4: Frantz Rd & Monterey Dr 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 15.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 31 1205 64 37 43 864
Future Vol, veh/h 16 31 1205 64 37 43 864
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
Mvmt Flow 19 36 1418 75 44 51 1016
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2154 747 0 0 1493 1493 0
Stage 1 1456 - - - - - -
Stage 2 698 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.9 - - 6.4 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.5 2.23 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 42 360 - - 163 441 -
Stage 1 184 - - - - - -
Stage 2 460 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 3 360 - - 231 231 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 24 - - - - - -
Stage 1 184 - - - - - -
Stage 2 30 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 193.3 0 26.6
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 62 231 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.892 0.219 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 193.3 30.8 26.2
HCM Lane LOS - - F D D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 4.2 0.8 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 456 0 17 0 11 1168 10 1326Future Volume (vph) 456 0 17 0 11 1168 10 1326Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 307 0 32 13 1377 12 1582Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NAProtected Phases 4 4 8 2 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2Total Split (s) 59.0 59.0 18.0 18.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0Total Split (%) 45.4% 45.4% 13.8% 13.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2Lead/LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Maxv/c Ratio 0.71 0.63 0.23 0.17 0.65 0.10 0.76Control Delay 51.3 36.9 3.9 26.3 22.9 23.3 29.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 51.3 36.9 3.9 26.3 22.9 23.3 29.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 260 187 0 5 433 6 607Queue Length 95th (ft) 311 242 0 24 575 m22 #783Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50Base Capacity (vph) 704 722 178 76 2104 124 2078Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.18 0.17 0.65 0.10 0.76Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 130Actuated Cycle Length: 130Offset: 37 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 105Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 456 0 86 17 0 10 11 1168 16 10 1326 34Future Volume (veh/h) 456 0 86 17 0 10 11 1168 16 10 1326 34Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 623 0 0 20 0 12 13 1358 19 12 1542 40Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Cap, veh/h 800 420 0 46 0 27 122 2214 31 205 2167 56Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.20 0.20 0.20Sat Flow, veh/h 3619 1900 0 1081 0 648 328 3645 51 400 3567 92Grp Volume(v), veh/h 623 0 0 32 0 0 13 672 705 12 773 809Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 0 1729 0 0 328 1805 1891 400 1791 1869Q Serve(g_s), s 21.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 30.3 30.3 3.5 52.3 52.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 56.8 30.3 30.3 33.8 52.3 52.5Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.62 0.37 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 800 420 0 73 0 0 122 1097 1149 205 1088 1135V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.61 0.61 0.06 0.71 0.71Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1487 780 0 173 0 0 122 1097 1149 205 1088 1135HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.6 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 42.9 16.0 16.0 47.3 41.3 41.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.6 1.6 0.5 3.9 3.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 12.4 12.9 0.4 26.3 27.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.2 0.0 0.0 64.9 0.0 0.0 44.0 17.6 17.5 47.9 45.2 45.2LnGrp LOS D A A E A A D B B D D DApproach Vol, veh/h 623 32 1390 1594Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 64.9 17.8 45.2Approach LOS D E B DTimer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 85.2 34.3 85.2 10.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.8 53.4 46.8 13.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 58.8 23.1 54.5 4.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.9HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 331 374 432 77 176 277 738 74 1056Future Volume (vph) 331 374 432 77 176 277 738 74 1056Lane Group Flow (vph) 364 411 475 85 290 304 919 81 1450Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NAProtected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0Total Split (s) 12.0 26.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 12.0 35.0 12.0 35.0Total Split (%) 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 41.2% 14.1% 41.2%Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesRecall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Minv/c Ratio 0.89 0.87 0.62 0.34 0.35 1.03 0.65 0.27 1.21Control Delay 48.7 51.1 18.8 20.4 19.0 82.8 24.0 13.4 127.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 48.7 51.1 18.8 20.4 19.0 82.8 24.0 13.4 127.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 212 148 28 43 ~149 215 21 ~497Queue Length 95th (ft) #290 #378 257 57 77 #309 292 44 #632Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200Base Capacity (vph) 409 475 766 258 900 295 1424 312 1203Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.87 0.62 0.33 0.32 1.03 0.65 0.26 1.21Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 85Actuated Cycle Length: 85Offset: 36 (42%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 145Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 331 374 432 77 176 88 277 738 98 74 1056 264Future Volume (veh/h) 331 374 432 77 176 88 277 738 98 74 1056 264Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1856 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1900 1841 1841Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 364 411 475 85 193 97 304 811 108 81 1160 290Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 4Cap, veh/h 416 458 540 230 516 249 254 1251 167 387 1028 254Arrive On Green 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.79 0.79 0.07 0.37 0.37Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 1610 1767 2361 1139 1795 3177 423 1810 2778 687Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 411 475 85 146 144 304 457 462 81 726 724Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1767 1805 1695 1795 1791 1809 1810 1749 1717Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 17.8 20.5 3.1 5.8 6.2 8.0 9.4 9.4 2.2 31.4 31.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 17.8 20.5 3.1 5.8 6.2 8.0 9.4 9.4 2.2 31.4 31.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.40Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 458 540 230 394 370 254 705 712 387 647 635V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.37 0.37 0.39 1.20 0.65 0.65 0.21 1.12 1.14Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 416 458 540 271 435 409 254 705 712 430 647 635HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 31.2 26.6 24.2 28.2 28.4 18.1 6.5 6.5 14.3 26.8 26.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.1 20.0 15.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 120.9 4.6 4.5 0.1 66.7 74.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 10.3 10.8 1.3 2.5 2.5 11.0 2.9 2.9 0.9 24.1 24.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.3 51.2 42.1 25.0 28.8 29.1 139.0 11.0 11.0 14.4 93.5 100.9LnGrp LOS D D D C C C F B B B F FApproach Vol, veh/h 1250 375 1223 1531Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 28.0 42.8 92.8Approach LOS D C D FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 39.0 10.1 26.0 12.0 36.9 12.0 24.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 11.4 5.1 22.5 10.0 33.4 10.0 8.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.1HCM 6th LOS ENotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 PM
7: Frantz Rd & Cramer Creek Ct 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 6 20 0 28 2 1149 12 7 1563 1
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 6 20 0 28 2 1149 12 7 1563 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 50 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 0 6 22 0 30 2 1235 13 8 1681 1
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2320 2950 841 2103 2944 624 1682 0 0 1248 0 0
Stage 1 1698 1698 - 1246 1246 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 622 1252 - 857 1698 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 21 15 312 30 15 433 386 - - 565 - -
Stage 1 98 150 - 187 248 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 446 246 - 323 150 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 19 15 312 29 15 433 386 - - 565 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 19 15 - 29 15 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 98 148 - 186 247 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 413 245 - 312 148 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.8 167.1 0 0.1
HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 386 - - 312 64 565 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.021 0.806 0.013 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 - - 16.8 167.1 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - C F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 3.7 0 - -
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 131 8 40 10 10 875 49 1291Future Volume (vph) 131 8 40 10 10 875 49 1291Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 62 0 123 12 1091 59 1596Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NAProtected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 15.0 38.0 15.0 38.0Total Split (%) 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 17.6% 44.7% 17.6% 44.7%Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5Lead/LagLead Lag Lead LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Minv/c Ratio 0.55 0.20 0.40 0.02 0.57 0.19 0.75Control Delay 40.5 30.8 26.3 7.3 16.8 7.2 15.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 40.5 30.8 26.3 7.3 16.8 7.2 15.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 30 45 2 214 11 277Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 55 79 m6 292 m15 m391Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145Base Capacity (vph) 482 515 488 562 1917 366 2115Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.12 0.25 0.02 0.57 0.16 0.75Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 85Actuated Cycle Length: 90Offset: 12 (14%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of YellowNatural Cycle: 85Control Type: Actuated-Coordinatedm Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 131 8 43 40 10 52 10 875 31 49 1291 34Future Volume (veh/h) 131 8 43 40 10 52 10 875 31 49 1291 34Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 10 52 48 12 63 12 1054 37 59 1555 41Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cap, veh/h 280 39 202 125 46 118 217 2140 75 374 2311 61Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.43 0.43Sat Flow, veh/h 1346 266 1385 456 312 806 1810 3558 125 1810 3593 95Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 0 62 123 0 0 12 535 556 59 780 816Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1346 0 1651 1574 0 0 1810 1805 1878 1810 1805 1883Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 0.0 2.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 22.4 22.4 0.9 29.4 29.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 2.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 22.4 22.4 0.9 29.4 29.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.84 0.39 0.51 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 280 0 241 289 0 0 217 1086 1129 374 1161 1211V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.26 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.16 0.67 0.67Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 494 0 503 531 0 0 402 1086 1129 484 1161 1211HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.67Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 32.2 33.4 0.0 0.0 10.4 22.5 22.5 8.4 17.0 17.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.5 0.2 3.1 3.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.1 11.5 0.3 13.5 14.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 0.0 32.8 34.4 0.0 0.0 10.5 24.1 24.1 8.6 20.1 20.1LnGrp LOS D A C C A A B C C A C CApproach Vol, veh/h 220 123 1103 1655Approach Delay, s/veh 35.8 34.4 24.0 19.7Approach LOS D C C BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 60.2 18.5 9.9 56.6 18.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.4 32.5 25.9 10.4 32.5 25.9Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 31.6 11.7 2.9 24.4 7.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.1 5.9 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC No-Build - 2040 PM
9: Frantz Rd & Parkcenter Ave 04/03/2020
Existing Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 196.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 0 360 10 0 8 108 869 1 2 1410 68
Future Vol, veh/h 92 0 360 10 0 8 108 869 1 2 1410 68
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 75 - - - - - 200 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 110 0 429 12 0 10 129 1035 1 2 1679 81
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2500 3018 880 2138 3058 518 1760 0 0 1036 0 0
Stage 1 1724 1724 - 1294 1294 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 776 1294 - 844 1764 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.32 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.31 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 15 13 ~ 294 28 13 508 315 - - 679 - -
Stage 1 ~ 94 145 - 175 235 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 361 235 - 328 139 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 10 8 ~ 294 - 8 508 315 - - 679 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 10 8 - - 8 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 ~ 55 145 - 103 139 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 209 139 - - 139 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 1264.9 2.7 0
HCM LOS F -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 315 - - 10 294 - 679 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.408 - -10.952 1.458 - 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 24.1 - -$ 5209.8 256.8 - 10.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS C - - F F - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 - - 15.2 23.6 - 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Lanes, Volumes, TimingsNo-Build - 2040 PM10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 13Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 210 95 512 45 145 390 666 6 1253 320Future Volume (vph) 210 95 512 45 145 390 666 6 1253 320Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 104 563 49 186 429 750 7 1377 352Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 5 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 86Detector Phase 7 4 5 8 8 5 2 1 6 6Switch PhaseMinimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0Minimum Split (s) 13.1 39.0 13.5 40.8 40.8 13.5 30.5 13.2 39.8 39.8Total Split (s) 15.0 35.0 19.0 20.0 20.0 19.0 38.0 12.0 31.0 31.0Total Split (%) 17.6% 41.2% 22.4% 23.5% 23.5% 22.4% 44.7% 14.1% 36.5% 36.5%Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.8 3.2 4.8 4.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.3Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 7.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.4 5.4Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag LagLead-Lag Optimize?Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max C-Maxv/c Ratio 0.66 0.17 0.36 0.26 0.69 0.83 0.42 0.06 1.25 0.49Control Delay 32.3 21.4 10.5 36.0 47.4 50.6 15.0 38.2 146.3 6.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 32.3 21.4 10.5 36.0 47.4 50.6 15.0 38.2 146.3 6.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 39 80 23 90 116 119 4 ~497 11Queue Length 95th (ft) 154 76 116 56 #170 #192 216 m8 #626 m73Internal Link Dist (ft) 1368 1219 1103 587Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 475 200 500 175Base Capacity (vph) 349 625 1576 200 288 519 1790 123 1105 722Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.17 0.36 0.24 0.65 0.83 0.42 0.06 1.25 0.49Intersection SummaryCycle Length: 85Actuated Cycle Length: 85Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of GreenNatural Cycle: 130Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.Splits and Phases: 10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary No-Build - 2040 PM10: Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd05/17/2020Existing ConditionsSynchro 11 ReportAmerican Structurepoint, Inc.Page 14Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 210 95 512 45 145 25 390 666 16 6 1253 320Future Volume (veh/h) 210 95 512 45 145 25 390 666 16 6 1253 320Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1885 1900 1885 1885 1841 1870 1870 1900 1885 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 231 104 563 49 159 27 429 732 18 7 1377 352Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 2 0 1 0Cap, veh/h 307 574 1264 183 198 34 501 1665 41 16 1187 534Arrive On Green 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.47 0.47 0.01 0.44 0.44Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 2812 782 1570 267 3401 3544 87 1810 3582 1610Grp Volume(v), veh/h 231 104 563 49 0 186 429 367 383 7 1377 352Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1406 782 0 1837 1700 1777 1855 1810 1791 1610Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 3.4 11.7 5.0 0.0 8.4 10.5 11.7 11.7 0.3 28.2 14.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 3.4 11.7 5.0 0.0 8.4 10.5 11.7 11.7 0.3 28.2 14.6Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 307 574 1264 183 0 231 501 835 871 16 1187 534V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.18 0.45 0.27 0.00 0.80 0.86 0.44 0.44 0.43 1.16 0.66Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 307 626 1341 204 0 281 512 835 871 123 1187 534HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.3 21.9 16.1 34.6 0.0 36.1 35.4 15.1 15.1 41.8 23.8 20.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 13.1 13.2 1.7 1.6 17.1 81.6 6.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 1.4 3.7 1.0 0.0 4.6 5.1 4.7 4.9 0.2 23.1 5.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.2 22.0 16.3 35.4 0.0 49.2 48.6 16.7 16.7 58.9 105.4 26.3LnGrp LOS D C B D A D D B B E F CApproach Vol, veh/h 898 235 1179 1736Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 46.4 28.3 89.1Approach LOS C D C FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 45.3 32.7 18.7 33.6 15.0 17.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 * 5.4 * 7 * 6.2 * 5.4 * 6.1 * 7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.8 * 33 * 28 * 13 * 26 * 8.9 * 13Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 13.7 13.7 12.5 30.2 10.9 10.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.2HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
2019.02529
Capacity Analysis Results and Synchro Output
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
[Build Alternative 6]
Notes:
Alternatives 5 and 6 reflect the same capacity analysis
Analysis results provided for signalized intersections only
Lane reduction does not apply to:
01 – Frantz Rd & US 33/W Bridge St
10 – Frantz Rd & Tuttle Crossing Blvd/Tuttle Rd
Frantz Road Alternative
Transportation Lane
Feasibility Study
Capacity Analysis Results
Design Year 2040 Traffic Volumes
(Build Alt 6)
5/19/2020
No.Intersection LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Critical
v/c
2 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr A 9.6 0.77
3 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S A 2.2 0.44
5 Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr A 7.1 0.84
6 Frantz Rd & Rings Rd D 38.5 1.09
8 Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave C 31.1 1.05
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
No.Intersection LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Critical
v/c
2 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr F 85.2 1.29
3 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S C 20.2 0.98
5 Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr E 72.8 1.20
6 Frantz Rd & Rings Rd F 87.0 1.26
8 Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave C 26.9 0.96
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
No.Intersection LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Critical
v/c
2 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr C 29.0 0.95
3 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S A 2.0 0.74
5 Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr C 32.8 1.08
6 Frantz Rd & Rings Rd E 61.5 1.24
8 Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave B 12.2 0.62
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
No.Intersection LOS Delay
(sec/veh)
Critical
v/c
2 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr C 23.3 0.94
3 Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S B 10.0 0.73
5 Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr F 105.6 1.39
6 Frantz Rd & Rings Rd F 216.7 2.21
8 Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave F 91.2 1.31
XXX indicates value exceeds threshold for acceptable operations
Note: Analysis is provided for signalized intersections only (excludes No. 1 and 10)
Results reflect overall intersection operations.
Alternative 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM Peak Hour
Alternative 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM Peak Hour
Alternative 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM Peak Hour
Alternative 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM Peak Hour
2019.02529
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Future Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 45 124 94 53 460 68 23 1200 526
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.29 0.62 0.44 0.18 0.39 0.06 0.04 0.55 0.42
Control Delay 60.7 44.3 68.0 54.0 9.4 15.6 2.3 8.3 17.1 1.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.7 44.3 68.0 54.0 9.4 15.6 2.3 8.3 17.1 1.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 25 102 68 10 185 3 5 295 27
Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 64 160 118 33 329 17 m9 m356 m15
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 441 459 293 1182 1279 602 2195 1382
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.20 0.18 0.39 0.05 0.04 0.55 0.38
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 71 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Future Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1870 1663 1900 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 35 15 124 76 18 53 460 68 23 1200 526
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 16 0 1 0
Cap, veh/h 94 66 28 160 131 31 289 1279 1090 693 2410 1167
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.89 0.89
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1262 541 1781 1462 346 1810 1870 1409 1810 3582 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 50 124 0 94 53 460 68 23 1200 526
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1803 1781 0 1808 1810 1870 1409 1810 1791 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.3 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.3 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 0 94 160 0 163 289 1279 1090 693 2410 1167
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.53 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.18 0.36 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 435 444 0 451 313 1279 1090 737 2410 1167
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.29 0.29 0.29
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.9 0.0 60.1 57.9 0.0 56.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.1 2.7 1.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.0 4.6 7.7 0.0 3.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 1.7 4.4 0.0 3.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.0 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.8 0.0 64.7 65.6 0.0 60.0 6.2 0.7 0.1 6.1 2.9 2.2
LnGrp LOS E A E E A E A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 96 218 581 1749
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.2 63.2 1.2 2.7
Approach LOS E E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 94.5 12.4 8.3 93.1 16.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 2.0 5.5 3.2 10.3 10.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.0 13.4 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Future Volume (vph) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 29 213 551 1063 217
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 42.0 24.0 24.0 88.0 64.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 32.3% 18.5% 18.5% 67.7% 49.2% 32.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.08 0.43 0.36 0.42 0.16
Control Delay 57.1 12.9 4.2 3.4 4.8 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 57.1 12.9 4.2 3.4 4.8 0.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 0 23 76 100 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 25 m45 175 58 1
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 955 428 552 1543 2515 1612
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 247 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.36 0.47 0.13
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 95 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Future Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1885 1841 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 29 212 551 1062 217
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 1 4 1 0
Cap, veh/h 231 190 484 1572 2727 1335
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 1560 1795 1841 3676 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 29 212 551 1062 217
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1560 1795 1841 1791 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 231 190 484 1572 2727 1335
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.15 0.44 0.35 0.39 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 965 527 650 1572 2727 1335
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 51.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.3 51.6 2.8 0.6 0.3 0.2
LnGrp LOS E D A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 59 763 1279
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.5 1.2 0.3
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 104.1 13.9 116.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 58.9 36.9 82.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 2.0 4.2 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 24.5 0.2 8.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 1 6 0 73 1104 2 816
Future Volume (vph) 40 1 6 0 73 1104 2 816
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 27 0 18 80 1213 2 1449
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 24.0 24.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0
Total Split (%) 36.2% 36.2% 18.5% 18.5% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.33 0.79 0.01 0.52
Control Delay 59.7 41.6 1.4 10.0 15.1 8.5 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.7 41.6 1.4 10.0 15.1 8.5 7.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 13 0 12 383 0 161
Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 45 0 59 #1226 m2 376
Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 500 483 284 242 1527 181 2769
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.33 0.79 0.01 0.52
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 77 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 1 10 6 0 10 73 1104 0 2 816 502
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 1 10 6 0 10 73 1104 0 2 816 502
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1900 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 23 11 7 0 11 80 1213 0 2 897 552
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 116 83 40 19 0 30 344 1445 0 221 1650 990
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.77 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1215 581 654 0 1028 373 1870 0 468 2135 1282
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 34 18 0 0 80 1213 0 2 743 706
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 1795 1682 0 0 373 1870 0 468 1777 1640
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 54.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 54.5 0.0 54.8 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 0.39 0.61 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.78
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 116 0 123 49 0 0 344 1445 0 221 1373 1267
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.28 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.54 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 536 0 572 246 0 0 344 1445 0 221 1373 1267
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 0.0 57.5 61.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 9.6 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 2.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.6 0.0 60.0 66.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.1 0.0 15.0 1.5 1.8
LnGrp LOS E A E E A A A B A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 62 18 1293 1451
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.8 66.3 9.8 1.7
Approach LOS E E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 106.6 14.5 106.6 8.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.8 41.4 52.8 19.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 56.5 4.3 56.8 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 173 101 193 124 344 363 915 45 549
Future Volume (vph) 173 101 193 124 344 363 915 45 549
Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 103 197 127 420 370 977 46 852
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 15.0 38.0 12.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 22.2% 16.7% 22.2% 24.4% 16.7% 42.2% 13.3% 38.9%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.26 0.25 0.30 0.71 0.93 1.14 0.20 0.73
Control Delay 25.8 32.2 3.7 21.2 40.8 42.4 94.5 13.2 27.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.8 32.2 3.7 21.2 40.8 42.4 94.5 13.2 27.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 50 0 48 112 135 ~745 12 194
Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 96 41 84 161 m#225 m#844 29 264
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 372 390 795 541 656 396 860 251 1172
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.64 0.93 1.14 0.18 0.73
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 8 (9%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 135
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 173 101 193 124 344 68 363 915 42 45 549 286
Future Volume (veh/h) 173 101 193 124 344 68 363 915 42 45 549 286
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1841 1841 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 103 197 127 351 69 370 934 43 46 560 292
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 297 318 460 385 441 86 440 859 40 176 930 484
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.97 0.97 0.05 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1841 1560 1810 3013 586 1781 1774 82 1810 2241 1167
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 103 197 127 209 211 370 0 977 46 440 412
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1560 1810 1805 1795 1781 0 1856 1810 1763 1645
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 4.4 9.2 5.3 10.0 10.3 11.0 0.0 43.6 1.2 17.5 17.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 4.4 9.2 5.3 10.0 10.3 11.0 0.0 43.6 1.2 17.5 17.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.71
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 318 460 385 264 263 440 0 898 176 732 683
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.32 0.43 0.33 0.79 0.80 0.84 0.00 1.09 0.26 0.60 0.60
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 318 460 564 331 329 440 0 898 241 732 683
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 32.6 25.6 29.1 37.1 37.2 14.8 0.0 1.4 20.8 20.5 20.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 9.8 11.0 13.4 0.0 56.7 0.5 3.1 3.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 2.0 3.3 2.3 5.0 5.2 4.7 0.0 14.7 0.5 7.4 7.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 33.2 26.2 29.5 46.9 48.2 28.1 0.0 58.2 21.3 23.6 23.8
LnGrp LOS C C C C D D C A F C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 477 547 1347 898
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 43.3 49.9 23.6
Approach LOS C D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 49.1 11.1 21.1 15.0 42.9 13.5 18.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 32.5 16.0 14.5 11.0 29.5 14.0 16.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 45.6 7.3 11.2 13.0 19.6 9.5 12.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 3 13 11 34 1198 32 576
Future Volume (vph) 48 3 13 11 34 1198 32 576
Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 5 0 61 36 1315 34 743
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 38.0 20.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 22.2% 42.2% 22.2% 42.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.02 0.28 0.06 0.97 0.15 0.30
Control Delay 39.2 29.2 22.4 2.5 31.9 4.7 3.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.2 29.2 22.4 2.5 31.9 4.7 3.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 2 14 3 ~877 2 33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 12 49 m7 m#1054 m6 58
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 482 515 488 730 1354 376 2470
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.97 0.09 0.30
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 55.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 3 2 13 11 33 34 1198 39 32 576 122
Future Volume (veh/h) 48 3 2 13 11 33 34 1198 39 32 576 122
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1856 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 3 2 14 12 35 36 1274 41 34 613 130
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4
Cap, veh/h 234 112 75 71 52 100 520 1217 39 168 1921 406
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1337 1063 709 211 496 952 1810 1816 58 1767 2872 608
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 0 5 61 0 0 36 0 1315 34 373 370
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1337 0 1772 1660 0 0 1810 0 1875 1767 1749 1731
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 58.4 0.5 16.1 16.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 58.4 0.5 16.1 16.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 0.23 0.57 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 0 186 224 0 0 520 0 1257 168 1169 1158
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 1.05 0.20 0.32 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 0 510 518 0 0 746 0 1257 391 1169 1158
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 0.0 36.1 37.4 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 17.9 17.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 38.5 0.6 0.7 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 13.4 0.5 7.7 7.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 0.0 36.2 38.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 38.5 25.0 18.6 18.6
LnGrp LOS D A D D A A A A F C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 56 61 1351 777
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 38.0 37.6 18.9
Approach LOS D D D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 65.7 15.6 8.6 65.8 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.4 32.5 25.9 15.4 32.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 18.1 4.4 2.5 60.4 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Future Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 343 140 54 19 1180 246 36 446 80
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.88 0.63 0.22 0.04 1.32 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.07
Control Delay 74.1 70.6 65.6 26.5 15.7 176.4 4.7 24.9 25.6 0.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 74.1 70.6 65.6 26.5 15.7 176.4 4.7 24.9 25.6 0.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 290 283 114 17 5 ~1363 14 16 112 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #452 #443 174 54 m10 #1741 m43 m35 216 m7
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 449 455 508 896 1135 154 1772 1241
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.82 0.31 0.12 0.04 1.32 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.06
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 84 (65%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 343 354 60 140 22 32 19 1180 246 36 446 80
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
Cap, veh/h 430 376 64 174 67 98 523 916 937 106 1772 1152
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.65 0.65 0.06 0.99 0.99
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1583 268 1810 699 1017 1810 1885 1610 1810 3582 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 0 414 140 0 54 19 1180 246 36 446 80
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1852 1810 0 1717 1810 1885 1610 1810 1791 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 63.2 7.2 1.3 0.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 63.2 7.2 1.3 0.2 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 430 0 440 174 0 165 523 916 937 106 1772 1152
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.80 0.00 0.33 0.04 1.29 0.26 0.34 0.25 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 447 451 0 428 572 916 937 139 1772 1152
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.93 0.93 0.93
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 0.0 48.6 57.6 0.0 54.8 16.0 23.0 8.8 30.1 0.3 0.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 28.0 8.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 133.5 0.3 1.7 0.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 0.0 16.4 5.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 56.3 3.0 0.6 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 0.0 76.6 66.0 0.0 56.0 16.0 156.5 9.2 31.9 0.7 0.2
LnGrp LOS E A E E A E B F A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 757 194 1445 562
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.5 63.2 129.6 2.6
Approach LOS E E F A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 68.8 36.5 6.5 69.9 17.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 65.2 30.5 2.7 2.2 11.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 85.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Future Volume (vph) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 281 55 1352 660 41
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 46.0 30.0 30.0 84.0 54.0 46.0
Total Split (%) 35.4% 23.1% 23.1% 64.6% 41.5% 35.4%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.66 0.09 0.87 0.26 0.03
Control Delay 60.9 35.4 2.5 11.6 3.8 0.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 35.4 2.5 11.6 3.8 0.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 138 6 646 32 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 207 m9 m204 94 m3
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 1090 609 779 1551 2555 1613
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.46 0.07 0.87 0.26 0.03
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 103 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 135
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Future Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 281 55 1352 660 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 677 385 599 1382 2319 1347
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.09 1.00 0.85 0.85
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1598 1810 1900 3705 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 281 55 1352 660 41
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1598 1810 1900 1805 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 0.0 4.6 0.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 0.0 4.6 0.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 677 385 599 1382 2319 1347
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.73 0.09 0.98 0.28 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1096 577 863 1382 2319 1347
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 45.5 5.7 0.0 3.7 0.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 3.4 0.1 19.6 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 18.2 0.4 7.5 1.5 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 48.9 5.8 19.6 4.0 0.8
LnGrp LOS D D A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 1407 701
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.3 19.0 3.8
Approach LOS D B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 88.6 30.4 99.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 48.9 40.9 78.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 6.6 23.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 10.4 2.2 54.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 456 0 17 0 11 1168 10 1326
Future Volume (vph) 456 0 17 0 11 1168 10 1326
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 307 0 32 13 1377 12 1582
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total Split (s) 59.0 59.0 18.0 18.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
Total Split (%) 45.4% 45.4% 13.8% 13.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.63 0.23 0.17 1.24 0.20 0.76
Control Delay 51.3 36.9 3.9 26.3 144.1 34.1 30.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 51.3 36.9 3.9 26.3 144.1 34.1 30.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 260 187 0 5 ~1517 7 580
Queue Length 95th (ft) 311 242 0 24 #1808 m25 #740
Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 704 722 178 76 1107 60 2078
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.18 0.17 1.24 0.20 0.76
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 37 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 456 0 86 17 0 10 11 1168 16 10 1326 34
Future Volume (veh/h) 456 0 86 17 0 10 11 1168 16 10 1326 34
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 623 0 0 20 0 12 13 1358 19 12 1542 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cap, veh/h 800 420 0 46 0 27 122 1136 16 55 2167 56
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.20 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 3619 1900 0 1081 0 648 328 1869 26 400 3567 92
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 623 0 0 32 0 0 13 0 1377 12 773 809
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 0 1729 0 0 328 0 1895 400 1791 1869
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 79.0 0.0 52.3 52.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 56.8 0.0 79.0 79.0 52.3 52.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.62 0.37 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 800 420 0 73 0 0 122 0 1151 55 1088 1135
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.20 0.22 0.71 0.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1487 780 0 173 0 0 122 0 1151 55 1088 1135
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.6 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 25.5 91.5 41.3 41.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 89.0 8.8 3.9 3.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 61.0 0.6 26.3 27.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.2 0.0 0.0 64.9 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 114.5 100.2 45.2 45.2
LnGrp LOS D A A E A A D A F F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 623 32 1390 1594
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 64.9 113.9 45.6
Approach LOS D E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 85.2 34.3 85.2 10.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.8 53.4 46.8 13.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 81.0 23.1 81.0 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 72.8
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 331 374 432 77 176 277 738 74 1056
Future Volume (vph) 331 374 432 77 176 277 738 74 1056
Lane Group Flow (vph) 364 411 475 85 290 304 919 81 1450
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0
Total Split (s) 12.0 26.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 12.0 35.0 12.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 41.2% 14.1% 41.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.87 0.62 0.34 0.35 1.03 1.23 0.32 1.21
Control Delay 48.7 51.1 18.8 20.4 19.0 76.1 131.9 14.6 127.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.7 51.1 18.8 20.4 19.0 76.1 131.9 14.6 127.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 212 148 28 43 ~145 ~650 21 ~497
Queue Length 95th (ft) #290 #378 257 57 77 m#183 m#692 44 #632
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 409 475 766 258 900 295 748 266 1203
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.87 0.62 0.33 0.32 1.03 1.23 0.30 1.21
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 36 (42%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 331 374 432 77 176 88 277 738 98 74 1056 264
Future Volume (veh/h) 331 374 432 77 176 88 277 738 98 74 1056 264
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1856 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1900 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 364 411 475 85 193 97 304 811 108 81 1160 290
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 4
Cap, veh/h 416 458 540 230 516 249 254 642 85 212 1028 254
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.79 0.79 0.07 0.37 0.37
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 1610 1767 2361 1139 1795 1629 217 1810 2778 687
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 411 475 85 146 144 304 0 919 81 726 724
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1767 1805 1695 1795 0 1846 1810 1749 1717
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 17.8 20.5 3.1 5.8 6.2 8.0 0.0 33.5 2.2 31.4 31.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 17.8 20.5 3.1 5.8 6.2 8.0 0.0 33.5 2.2 31.4 31.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 458 540 230 394 370 254 0 727 212 647 635
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.37 0.37 0.39 1.20 0.00 1.26 0.38 1.12 1.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 416 458 540 271 435 409 254 0 727 255 647 635
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 31.2 26.6 24.2 28.2 28.4 18.1 0.0 9.0 19.8 26.8 26.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.1 20.0 15.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 120.9 0.0 129.7 0.5 66.7 74.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 10.3 10.8 1.3 2.5 2.5 11.0 0.0 29.5 0.9 24.1 24.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.3 51.2 42.1 25.0 28.8 29.1 139.0 0.0 138.7 20.2 93.5 100.9
LnGrp LOS D D D C C C F A F C F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1250 375 1223 1531
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 28.0 138.8 93.1
Approach LOS D C F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 39.0 10.1 26.0 12.0 36.9 12.0 24.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 35.5 5.1 22.5 10.0 33.4 10.0 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 87.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 131 8 40 10 10 875 49 1291
Future Volume (vph) 131 8 40 10 10 875 49 1291
Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 62 0 123 12 1091 59 1596
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 15.0 38.0 15.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 17.6% 44.7% 17.6% 44.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.18 0.38 0.05 1.01 0.25 0.68
Control Delay 44.9 11.2 18.5 8.7 60.1 4.8 11.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.9 11.2 18.5 8.7 60.1 4.8 11.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 5 28 3 ~651 2 117
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 29 61 m8 #892 m10 m386
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 401 542 499 320 1079 303 2354
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.11 0.25 0.04 1.01 0.19 0.68
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 12 (14%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 115
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (NB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 8 43 40 10 52 10 875 31 49 1291 34
Future Volume (veh/h) 131 8 43 40 10 52 10 875 31 49 1291 34
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 10 52 48 12 63 12 1054 37 59 1555 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 280 39 202 125 46 118 217 1097 39 226 2311 61
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.04 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 1346 266 1385 456 312 806 1810 1824 64 1810 3593 95
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 0 62 123 0 0 12 0 1091 59 780 816
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1346 0 1651 1574 0 0 1810 0 1888 1810 1805 1883
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 0.0 2.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 46.3 0.9 29.4 29.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 2.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 46.3 0.9 29.4 29.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.84 0.39 0.51 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 280 0 241 289 0 0 217 0 1136 226 1161 1211
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.26 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.96 0.26 0.67 0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 494 0 503 531 0 0 402 0 1136 336 1161 1211
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 32.2 33.4 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 16.0 19.9 17.0 17.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 18.7 0.6 3.1 3.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 22.2 0.7 13.5 14.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 0.0 32.8 34.4 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 34.7 20.5 20.1 20.1
LnGrp LOS D A C C A A B A C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 220 123 1103 1655
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.8 34.4 34.5 20.1
Approach LOS D C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 60.2 18.5 9.9 56.6 18.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.4 32.5 25.9 10.4 32.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 31.6 11.7 2.9 48.3 7.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Future Volume (vph) 55 17 118 72 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 45 124 94 53 460 68 23 1200 526
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.25 0.62 0.44 0.34 0.21 0.06 0.04 1.07 0.43
Control Delay 55.7 40.6 68.0 54.0 24.8 11.6 0.9 9.6 66.2 2.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.7 40.6 68.0 54.0 24.8 11.6 0.9 9.6 66.2 2.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 25 102 68 12 68 0 5 ~1128 43
Queue Length 95th (ft) 75 61 160 118 51 124 2 m10 m#1433 m24
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 441 459 156 2186 1260 640 1123 1345
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.20 0.34 0.21 0.05 0.04 1.07 0.39
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 71 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Future Volume (veh/h) 55 17 14 118 72 17 50 437 65 22 1140 500
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1870 1663 1900 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 35 15 124 76 18 53 460 68 23 1200 526
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 16 0 1 0
Cap, veh/h 94 66 28 160 131 31 133 2430 1090 693 1268 1167
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.45 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1262 541 1781 1462 346 1810 3554 1409 1810 1885 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 50 124 0 94 53 460 68 23 1200 526
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1803 1781 0 1808 1810 1777 1409 1810 1885 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 79.2 25.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.5 8.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 79.2 25.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 0 94 160 0 163 133 2430 1090 693 1268 1167
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.53 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.40 0.19 0.06 0.03 0.95 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 435 444 0 451 157 2430 1090 737 1268 1167
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.29 0.29 0.29
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.9 0.0 60.1 57.9 0.0 56.8 32.6 0.0 0.0 6.2 33.4 14.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.0 4.6 7.7 0.0 3.2 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.8 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 1.7 4.4 0.0 3.1 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 39.2 12.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.8 0.0 64.7 65.6 0.0 60.0 34.5 0.2 0.1 6.2 39.3 14.4
LnGrp LOS E A E E A E C A A A D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 96 218 581 1749
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.2 63.2 3.3 31.4
Approach LOS E E A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 94.5 12.4 8.3 93.1 16.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 2.0 5.5 3.2 81.2 10.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Future Volume (vph) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 29 213 551 1063 217
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 42.0 24.0 24.0 88.0 64.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 32.3% 18.5% 18.5% 67.7% 49.2% 32.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.07 0.59 0.19 0.82 0.16
Control Delay 57.1 11.9 30.4 1.9 7.8 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0
Total Delay 57.1 11.9 30.4 1.9 16.4 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 0 59 33 45 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 24 m157 m42 m63 m0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 955 436 408 2931 1289 1599
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 201 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.07 0.52 0.19 0.98 0.14
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 95 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 125
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Future Volume (veh/h) 29 28 204 529 1020 208
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1885 1841 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 29 212 551 1062 217
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 1 4 1 0
Cap, veh/h 231 190 484 2986 1436 1335
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 1560 1795 3589 1885 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 29 212 551 1062 217
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1700 1560 1795 1749 1885 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 2.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 231 190 484 2986 1436 1335
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.15 0.44 0.18 0.74 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 965 527 650 2986 1436 1335
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 51.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.3 51.6 2.8 0.1 0.3 0.0
LnGrp LOS E D A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 59 763 1279
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.5 0.9 0.3
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 104.1 13.9 116.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 58.9 36.9 82.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 2.0 4.2 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 30.8 0.2 8.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.0
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 1 6 0 73 1104 2 816
Future Volume (vph) 40 1 6 0 73 1104 2 816
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 27 0 18 80 1213 2 1449
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 24.0 24.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0
Total Split (%) 36.2% 36.2% 18.5% 18.5% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.20 0.11 1.33 0.42 0.01 1.00
Control Delay 59.7 41.6 1.4 250.2 5.4 8.0 42.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.7 41.6 1.4 250.2 5.4 8.0 42.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 13 0 ~33 106 0 966
Queue Length 95th (ft) 57 45 0 #158 255 m2 #1686
Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 500 483 284 60 2902 327 1451
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.06 1.33 0.42 0.01 1.00
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 77 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 1 10 6 0 10 73 1104 0 2 816 502
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 1 10 6 0 10 73 1104 0 2 816 502
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1900 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 23 11 7 0 11 80 1213 0 2 897 552
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 116 83 40 19 0 30 74 2746 0 362 837 515
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.77 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1215 581 654 0 1028 373 3647 0 468 1084 667
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 34 18 0 0 80 1213 0 2 0 1449
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 1795 1682 0 0 373 1777 0 468 0 1750
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 6.6 15.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 93.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 100.4 15.3 0.0 15.4 0.0 93.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 0.39 0.61 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.38
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 116 0 123 49 0 0 74 2746 0 362 0 1352
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.28 0.36 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 536 0 572 246 0 0 74 2746 0 362 0 1352
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 0.0 57.5 61.9 0.0 0.0 64.2 5.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 2.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 114.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.6 0.0 60.0 66.3 0.0 0.0 178.6 5.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 46.1
LnGrp LOS E A E E A A F A A A A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 62 18 1293 1451
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.8 66.3 16.2 46.0
Approach LOS E E B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 106.6 14.5 106.6 8.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.8 41.4 52.8 19.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 102.4 4.3 95.8 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 173 101 193 124 344 363 915 45 549
Future Volume (vph) 173 101 193 124 344 363 915 45 549
Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 103 197 127 420 370 977 46 852
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 15.0 38.0 12.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 22.2% 16.7% 22.2% 24.4% 16.7% 42.2% 13.3% 38.9%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.26 0.25 0.30 0.71 0.97 0.60 0.15 1.42
Control Delay 25.8 32.2 3.7 21.2 40.8 60.4 18.8 12.2 227.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.8 32.2 3.7 21.2 40.8 60.4 18.8 12.2 227.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 50 0 48 112 ~175 275 12 ~655
Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 96 41 84 161 #373 361 29 #885
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 372 390 795 541 656 383 1635 325 598
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.64 0.97 0.60 0.14 1.42
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 8 (9%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 173 101 193 124 344 68 363 915 42 45 549 286
Future Volume (veh/h) 173 101 193 124 344 68 363 915 42 45 549 286
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1841 1841 1900 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1900 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 103 197 127 351 69 370 934 43 46 560 292
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 297 318 460 385 441 86 298 1675 77 372 477 249
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1841 1560 1810 3013 586 1781 3459 159 1810 1149 599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 103 197 127 209 211 370 480 497 46 0 852
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1841 1560 1810 1805 1795 1781 1777 1842 1810 0 1748
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 4.4 9.2 5.3 10.0 10.3 11.0 13.5 13.5 1.2 0.0 37.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 4.4 9.2 5.3 10.0 10.3 11.0 13.5 13.5 1.2 0.0 37.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 318 460 385 264 263 298 860 892 372 0 725
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.32 0.43 0.33 0.79 0.80 1.24 0.56 0.56 0.12 0.00 1.17
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 318 460 564 331 329 298 860 892 436 0 725
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 32.6 25.6 29.1 37.1 37.2 25.6 10.7 10.7 13.4 0.0 26.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 9.8 11.0 134.4 2.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 80.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 2.0 3.3 2.3 5.0 5.2 17.1 4.6 4.8 0.5 0.0 30.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 33.2 26.2 29.5 46.9 48.2 160.0 13.3 13.2 13.4 0.0 106.4
LnGrp LOS C C C C D D F B B B A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 477 547 1347 898
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 43.3 53.5 101.6
Approach LOS C D D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 49.1 11.1 21.1 15.0 42.9 13.5 18.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 32.5 16.0 14.5 11.0 29.5 14.0 16.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 15.5 7.3 11.2 13.0 39.4 9.5 12.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 61.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 3 13 11 34 1198 32 576
Future Volume (vph) 48 3 13 11 34 1198 32 576
Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 5 0 61 36 1315 34 743
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 38.0 20.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% 22.2% 42.2% 22.2% 42.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.02 0.28 0.07 0.51 0.10 0.57
Control Delay 39.2 29.2 22.4 2.5 5.6 1.9 4.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.2 29.2 22.4 2.5 5.6 1.9 4.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 2 14 3 118 2 63
Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 12 49 m7 m160 m4 m83
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 482 515 488 653 2572 491 1299
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.51 0.07 0.57
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated Cycle Length: 90
Offset: 55.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 85
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 AM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 3 2 13 11 33 34 1198 39 32 576 122
Future Volume (veh/h) 48 3 2 13 11 33 34 1198 39 32 576 122
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1856 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 3 2 14 12 35 36 1274 41 34 613 130
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4
Cap, veh/h 234 112 75 71 52 100 377 2374 76 436 985 209
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1337 1063 709 211 496 952 1810 3542 114 1767 1472 312
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 0 5 61 0 0 36 644 671 34 0 743
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1337 0 1772 1660 0 0 1810 1791 1865 1767 0 1785
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 33.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 33.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 0.23 0.57 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 0 186 224 0 0 377 1200 1250 436 0 1193
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.00 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 0 510 518 0 0 603 1200 1250 660 0 1193
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 0.0 36.1 37.4 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 24.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.1 0.0 2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 16.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 0.0 36.2 38.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 1.7 1.7 4.0 0.0 27.3
LnGrp LOS D A D D A A B A A A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 56 61 1351 777
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.5 38.0 1.9 26.2
Approach LOS D D A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 65.7 15.6 8.6 65.8 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.4 32.5 25.9 15.4 32.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 35.9 4.4 2.5 2.0 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 19.4 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Future Volume (vph) 489 100 132 21 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 343 140 54 19 1180 246 36 446 80
Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 8 1 6 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 38.0 38.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 37.0 10.0 35.0 38.0
Total Split (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0 10.0 46.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5% 7.7% 35.4% 28.5%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 4.6 4.0 5.6 5.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None None C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.88 0.63 0.22 0.04 0.69 0.23 0.18 0.48 0.07
Control Delay 74.1 70.6 65.6 26.5 9.4 27.1 1.6 22.6 31.6 0.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 74.1 70.6 65.6 26.5 9.4 27.1 1.6 22.6 31.6 0.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 290 283 114 17 6 491 11 16 230 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #452 #443 174 54 m13 #620 13 m35 468 m7
Internal Link Dist (ft) 984 630 585 1271
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 125 175 100 185
Base Capacity (vph) 414 420 449 455 427 1703 1165 199 933 1241
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.82 0.31 0.12 0.04 0.69 0.21 0.18 0.48 0.06
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 84 (65%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
2: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl N/Corbins Mill Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 489 100 56 132 21 30 18 1109 231 34 419 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1900 1885 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 343 354 60 140 22 32 19 1180 246 36 446 80
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
Cap, veh/h 430 376 64 174 67 98 523 1740 937 281 933 1152
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.97 0.97 0.06 0.99 0.99
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1583 268 1810 699 1017 1810 3582 1610 1810 1885 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 0 414 140 0 54 19 1180 246 36 446 80
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1852 1810 0 1717 1810 1791 1610 1810 1885 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 3.5 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.2 0.0 28.5 9.9 0.0 3.8 0.7 3.5 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 430 0 440 174 0 165 523 1740 937 281 933 1152
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.80 0.00 0.33 0.04 0.68 0.26 0.13 0.48 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 447 451 0 428 572 1740 937 314 933 1152
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.93
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 0.0 48.6 57.6 0.0 54.8 15.8 1.0 0.6 15.3 0.3 0.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 28.0 8.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.2 1.6 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 0.0 16.4 5.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 0.0 76.6 66.0 0.0 56.0 15.8 2.9 1.2 15.5 2.0 0.2
LnGrp LOS E A E E A E B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 757 194 1445 562
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.5 63.2 2.8 2.6
Approach LOS E E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 68.8 36.5 6.5 69.9 17.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 40.4 31.4 6.0 40.4 32.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 5.5 30.5 2.7 2.6 11.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.9 0.4 0.0 3.2 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Future Volume (vph) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 281 55 1352 660 41
Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+pt NA NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 4 1 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 4 1 1 6 2 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 20.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 37.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 42.0 37.0
Total Split (s) 46.0 30.0 30.0 84.0 54.0 46.0
Total Split (%) 35.4% 23.1% 23.1% 64.6% 41.5% 35.4%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.66 0.09 0.46 0.49 0.03
Control Delay 60.9 35.4 3.3 4.6 4.4 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 35.4 3.3 4.6 4.4 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 138 9 160 69 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 207 m15 143 217 m0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 991 1198 585
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 400 425 400
Base Capacity (vph) 1090 609 728 2946 1345 1613
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 75 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.46 0.08 0.46 0.52 0.03
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 103 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
3: Frantz Rd & Metro Pl S 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Future Volume (veh/h) 179 247 48 1190 581 36
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 281 55 1352 660 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 677 385 626 2626 1221 1347
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.97 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1598 1810 3705 1900 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 281 55 1352 660 41
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1598 1810 1805 1900 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 21.1 1.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 677 385 626 2626 1221 1347
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.73 0.09 0.51 0.54 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1096 577 890 2626 1221 1347
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.8 45.5 5.8 0.6 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 3.4 0.1 0.7 1.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 18.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 48.9 5.9 1.4 1.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS D D A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 1407 701
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.3 1.5 1.4
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 88.6 30.4 99.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 48.9 40.9 78.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.0 23.1 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 11.4 2.2 33.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 456 0 17 0 11 1168 10 1326
Future Volume (vph) 456 0 17 0 11 1168 10 1326
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 307 0 32 13 1377 12 1582
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 40.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
Total Split (s) 59.0 59.0 18.0 18.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
Total Split (%) 45.4% 45.4% 13.8% 13.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.6 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.63 0.23 0.22 0.65 0.10 1.45
Control Delay 51.3 36.9 3.9 31.6 22.9 21.6 233.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 51.3 36.9 3.9 31.6 22.9 21.6 233.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 260 187 0 6 433 6 ~1876
Queue Length 95th (ft) 311 242 0 27 575 m16 #2186
Internal Link Dist (ft) 507 671 1105 467
Turn Bay Length (ft) 160 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 704 722 178 60 2104 124 1093
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.18 0.22 0.65 0.10 1.45
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 37 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
5: Frantz Rd & Blazer Pkwy/Longbranch Dr 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 456 0 86 17 0 10 11 1168 16 10 1326 34
Future Volume (veh/h) 456 0 86 17 0 10 11 1168 16 10 1326 34
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 623 0 0 20 0 12 13 1358 19 12 1542 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cap, veh/h 800 420 0 46 0 27 55 2214 31 205 1111 29
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 3619 1900 0 1081 0 648 328 3645 51 400 1829 47
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 623 0 0 32 0 0 13 672 705 12 0 1582
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 0 1729 0 0 328 1805 1891 400 0 1877
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 30.3 2.5 0.0 79.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 79.0 30.3 30.3 32.8 0.0 79.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.62 0.37 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 800 420 0 73 0 0 55 1097 1149 205 0 1140
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.06 0.00 1.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1487 780 0 173 0 0 55 1097 1149 205 0 1140
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.6 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 65.0 16.0 16.0 26.2 0.0 25.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 1.6 1.6 0.5 0.0 179.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 12.4 12.9 0.3 0.0 89.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.2 0.0 0.0 64.9 0.0 0.0 71.2 17.6 17.5 26.8 0.0 205.4
LnGrp LOS D A A E A A E B B C A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 623 32 1390 1594
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 64.9 18.0 204.1
Approach LOS D E B F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 85.2 34.3 85.2 10.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.2 5.6 6.2 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.8 53.4 46.8 13.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 81.0 23.1 81.0 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 105.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 331 374 432 77 176 277 738 74 1056
Future Volume (vph) 331 374 432 77 176 277 738 74 1056
Lane Group Flow (vph) 364 411 475 85 290 304 919 81 1450
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 5 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 11.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 40.0 11.0 11.0 42.0 11.0 39.0 11.0 41.0
Total Split (s) 12.0 26.0 12.0 12.0 26.0 12.0 35.0 12.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 14.1% 30.6% 14.1% 41.2% 14.1% 41.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.87 0.62 0.34 0.35 1.03 0.65 0.27 2.30
Control Delay 48.7 51.1 18.8 20.4 19.0 88.5 17.8 13.4 610.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.7 51.1 18.8 20.4 19.0 88.5 17.8 13.4 610.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 212 148 28 43 ~135 257 21 ~1294
Queue Length 95th (ft) #290 #378 257 57 77 #312 184 44 #1550
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1352 734 584 1105
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 175 300 200
Base Capacity (vph) 409 475 766 258 900 295 1424 312 630
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.87 0.62 0.33 0.32 1.03 0.65 0.26 2.30
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 36 (42%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
6: Frantz Rd & Rings Rd 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 331 374 432 77 176 88 277 738 98 74 1056 264
Future Volume (veh/h) 331 374 432 77 176 88 277 738 98 74 1056 264
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1856 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1900 1841 1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 364 411 475 85 193 97 304 811 108 81 1160 290
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 4
Cap, veh/h 416 458 540 230 516 249 254 1251 167 387 526 131
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.79 0.79 0.07 0.37 0.37
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1900 1610 1767 2361 1139 1795 3177 423 1810 1421 355
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 411 475 85 146 144 304 457 462 81 0 1450
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1900 1610 1767 1805 1695 1795 1791 1809 1810 0 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 17.8 20.5 3.1 5.8 6.2 8.0 9.4 9.4 2.2 0.0 31.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 17.8 20.5 3.1 5.8 6.2 8.0 9.4 9.4 2.2 0.0 31.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 458 540 230 394 370 254 705 712 387 0 657
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.37 0.37 0.39 1.20 0.65 0.65 0.21 0.00 2.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 416 458 540 271 435 409 254 705 712 430 0 657
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 31.2 26.6 24.2 28.2 28.4 18.1 6.5 6.5 14.3 0.0 26.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.1 20.0 15.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 120.9 4.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 543.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 10.3 10.8 1.3 2.5 2.5 11.0 2.9 2.9 0.9 0.0 111.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.3 51.2 42.1 25.0 28.8 29.1 139.0 11.0 11.0 14.3 0.0 570.1
LnGrp LOS D D D C C C F B B B A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1250 375 1223 1531
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 28.0 42.8 540.7
Approach LOS D C D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 39.0 10.1 26.0 12.0 36.9 12.0 24.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5 8.0 29.5 8.0 20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 11.4 5.1 22.5 10.0 33.4 10.0 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 216.7
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 131 8 40 10 10 875 49 1291
Future Volume (vph) 131 8 40 10 10 875 49 1291
Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 62 0 123 12 1091 59 1596
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0
Minimum Split (s) 32.0 32.0 35.0 35.0 12.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 15.0 38.0 15.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 37.6% 17.6% 44.7% 17.6% 44.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.18 0.38 0.05 0.53 0.17 1.29
Control Delay 44.9 11.2 18.5 8.8 20.8 3.5 149.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.9 11.2 18.5 8.8 20.8 3.5 149.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 5 28 3 235 3 ~1077
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 29 61 m8 321 m8 m#664
Internal Link Dist (ft) 353 381 797 718
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 145 145
Base Capacity (vph) 401 542 499 310 2051 413 1238
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.11 0.25 0.04 0.53 0.14 1.29
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 85
Actuated Cycle Length: 85
Offset: 12 (14%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Splits and Phases: 8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Alt 6 (SB 1-ln) - 2040 PM
8: Frantz Rd & Bradenton Ave 05/19/2020
Build Conditions Synchro 11 Report
American Structurepoint, Inc.Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 8 43 40 10 52 10 875 31 49 1291 34
Future Volume (veh/h) 131 8 43 40 10 52 10 875 31 49 1291 34
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 158 10 52 48 12 63 12 1054 37 59 1555 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 280 39 202 125 46 118 121 2140 75 374 1185 31
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.86 0.86
Sat Flow, veh/h 1346 266 1385 456 312 806 1810 3558 125 1810 1843 49
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 0 62 123 0 0 12 535 556 59 0 1596
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1346 0 1651 1574 0 0 1810 1805 1878 1810 0 1891
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 0.0 2.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 22.4 22.4 0.9 0.0 54.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 2.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 22.4 22.4 0.9 0.0 54.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.84 0.39 0.51 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 280 0 241 289 0 0 121 1086 1129 374 0 1216
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.26 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.16 0.00 1.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 494 0 503 531 0 0 306 1086 1129 484 0 1216
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.33 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 32.2 33.4 0.0 0.0 21.8 22.5 22.5 8.1 0.0 6.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 1.5 0.2 0.0 146.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.1 11.5 0.3 0.0 53.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 0.0 32.8 34.4 0.0 0.0 22.1 24.1 24.1 8.3 0.0 152.6
LnGrp LOS D A C C A A C C C A A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 220 123 1103 1655
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.8 34.4 24.1 147.5
Approach LOS D C C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 60.2 18.5 9.9 56.6 18.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 5.5 6.1 4.6 5.5 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.4 32.5 25.9 10.4 32.5 25.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 56.7 11.7 2.9 24.4 7.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 5.9 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 91.2
HCM 6th LOS F
To:
Public Services Committee of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: February 10, 2022
Initiated By: Megan O’Callaghan, Deputy City Manager/Finance and Development Officer
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Jean-Ellen Willis, PE, Deputy Director of Transportation and Mobility
J.M. Rayburn, Planner II
Re: Mobility Study Update – Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
Background
This memo provides an update on the micro-mobility demonstration pilot. This proposed pilot
project is consistent with previous discussions with the Public Services Committee in 2021 when
the topic of micro-mobility vehicles, and specifically Bird scooters operating in Dublin, were
contemplated and received favorable feedback. Given the recommendations of the Frantz Road
Alternative Transportation Lane Study combined with the interest of Bird to operate in Dublin, staff
proposed to merge the two into a single pilot project at the November 2021 meeting of the Public
Services Committee. The Public Services Committee requested staff provide follow up information
regarding the Demonstration Pilot boundaries, timeline, Bird e-scooters phasing, speed limits,
parking management, and sidewalk congestion mitigation.
Pilot Boundaries
Staff proposed a two-phase approach for the pilot boundaries. Phase 1 would extend south from
Interstate 270 to Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and west from Sawmill Road to Interstate 270, as
shown in Figure 1. Phase 1 has a minimum three-month duration. During this phase, staff will
monitor and evaluate micro-mobility activity in conjunction with an education and marketing
campaign. Should Phase 1 prove successful, the pilot boundaries would be expanded citywide.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Figure 1: Pilot Boundaries for Phase 1 (purple) and CoGo Stations (green)
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 2 of 10
Demonstration Pilot - Timeline
Staff is proposing the following:
Pilot Planning and Approvals (February 2022 to April 2022)
Review demonstration project with the Public Services Committee
Finalize goals, scope, timeline and evaluation
Create an engagement and communications plan to educate the public on boundaries of
the pilot, expectations of drivers and micro-mobility users, and enforcement practices
Staff anticipates to provide City Council the demonstration project parameters and details
and request that Council temporarily suspend Code at the April 11, 2022 meeting
Phase 1 (May 2022 to July 2022)
Demonstration pilot commences in May 2022 in recognition of National Bike Month
Pilot launched within defined Phase 1 boundaries
Monitor and evaluate Phase 1 area for a minimum of 3 months
Implement communications plan
Phase 2 (August 2022 to May 2023)
Expand pilot boundaries citywide
Monitor and evaluate Phase 2 area for 9 months
Continue communications plan
Pilot Concludes (June 2023)
Conclude demonstration pilot
Report findings to the Public Services Committee and City Council and provide
recommendations for next steps
Proposed Code Section for Temporary Suspension
As mentioned previously, staff identified one section of the Dublin Code that would need to be
suspended as part of the demonstration pilot. With the support of the Committee, staff will request
that Council temporarily suspend this section of Code at the meeting scheduled for April 11, 2022.
§ 72.061 Driving upon sidewalks, bike paths, street lawns or other areas
o No person shall drive or operate any vehicle, other than a bicycle, upon a sidewalk
or sidewalk area, or bike path, except upon a permanent or duly authorized
temporary driveway.
Bird and CoGo
Bird plans to start with 50 e-scooters in the Phase 1 pilot area. As useage grows and the operating
zone expands citywide, Bird would look to increase based on utilization. Bird has proposed to
increase its fleet by 20 scooters when the average rides-per-day exceeds two (2) over the duration
of a month. It is anticipated that with the larger citywide zone, the fleet of Bird e-scooters would
grow to about 100-125 scooters. With respect to CoGo Bike Share, staff plans to deploy four bike
share stations this year at the DCRC, the parking garage at the library, North Market Bridge Park,
and at Frantz Road and Metro Place North. Staff will request funding in the 2023-2027 CIP to
expand the CoGo system at five locations including Dublin City Hall, the Dale Drive COTA Park &
Ride, the DCS Emerald Campus, the East Plaza at Riverside Crossing Park, and Frantz Road &
Rings Road. Each of these stations will have 11 docks for parking CoGo bikes.
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 3 of 10
Tools that Bird uses to encourage safe riding and parking include
geo-fencing, Community Safety Zones, and in-app notifications
and incentives. Geo-fences and Community Safety Zones were
described in the November 10, 2021 memo and is attached for
reference.
The Public Services Committee requested staff consider limiting
parking areas, especially in pedestrian zones. Bird recommends
embedding virtual parking locations in Historic Dublin and the
Bridge Street District, as shown in Figure 3. This feature allows
acceptable parking locations to be highlighted in the Bird app with
a photo for the rider to reference in addition to in-app incentives
such as a credit. This feature will help educate riders on
acceptable parking locations in order to mitigate sidewalk clutter
and congestion. In the event that a Bird e-scooter parks outside a
recommended location, a notification is sent to the local Fleet
Manager to rebalance the scooters back to the designated
locations. Furthermore, Bird has confirmed the capability to
implement No Ride Zones for streets such as Longshore Street
and special events such as the Dublin Market at Bridge Park and
the Irish Festival.
The Public Services Committee requested staff explore sidewalk
congestion mitigation measures in areas with narrow sidewalks.
This is being addressed in two areas and includes five components:
a mobility boulevard, parking management, targeted scooter
parking, a pedestrian only zone, and new signage.
Figure 3: Embedded Parking
Locations in Bird’s app
Figure 2: Example of Bird’s
in-app messaging
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 4 of 10
Historic Dublin
Staff is proposing a ‘mobility boulevard’ to create designated
corridors for micro-mobility traffic that parallel streets with
narrow sidewalks. Mobility boulevards are in essence bike
boulevards but are inclusive for all micro-mobility users.
According to the National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO), bike boulevards should be designed for
streets with motor vehicle volumes under 1,500 vehicles per day
(VPD), with up to 3,000 VPD allowed in limited sections of a bike
boulevard corridor. Based on this criteria, staff has identified a
potential route on low volume streets within Historic Dublin as a
start.
For the timeframe of the demonstration pilot, Darby Street
(2,000 VPD) and Mill Lane (1,000 VPD) provide a parallel route
to High Street and have traffic volumes under the 3,000 max
VPD guidance from NACTO. The mobility boulevard would
extend from North Street to John Wright Lane as a low-stress
alternative to High Street, as shown in Figure 4. Both Darby
Street and Mill Lane are designated as alleyways and have a
speed limit of 15 MPH. According to recent speed surveys, the
average speed for both segments is approximately 14 MPH.
Lower speed limits can increase comfort and safety for users.
Additionally, users of this proposed Mobility Boulevard could use
the existing enhanced crosswalk for crossing Bridge Street.
With the establishment of the Historic Dublin
Mobility Boulevard, staff proposes a parking
management plan for micro-mobility
vehicles that builds off existing facilities
within the district, as shown in red in Figure
5. Specifically, staff is proposing micro-
mobility parking at existing public bike racks
at six (6) locations. These include bike racks
at Gateway Brewing Company, at The
Avenue, at the southwest corner of the
intersection of North Street and North High
Street, inside the library parking garage, at
the Darby Street parking lot, and adjacent
to the Franklin Street Parking lot.
Additionally, staff is proposing the
conversion of an on-street parking space on
Mill Lane to a micro-mobility parking space,
as shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7.
Figure 4: Proposed Mobility Boulevard
(yellow) in the Historic District
Bridge St
Bridge St
Existing bike racks
Add parking area
Mobility Boulevard
Figure 5: Proposed Micro-mobility Parking
Management Plan in Historic Dublin
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 5 of 10
Figure 6: Proposed conversion of one (1) vehicular parking space on Mill Lane (orange) to
micro-mobility parking area
Convert space to
micro-mobility
parking
Mobility Boulevard
Existing parking space
Figure 7: Street view of proposed micro-mobility parking area (orange) on Mill Lane
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 6 of 10
Finally, staff is proposing the addition of a scooter parking area at the intersection of John Wright Lane
and Mill Lane, as shown in Figures 8 and 9. At this time, staff is not proposing the conversion of a
parking space at the John Wright Parking Lot; however, staff would propose the conversion of one
parking space for a temporary bike rack, if demand warrants it, as shown in Figure 10.
John Wright
Parking Lot
Figure 8: Aerial view of proposed scooter parking (orange) at the intersection of John
Wright Lane and Mill Lane
Figure 9: Street view of proposed scooter parking area at John Wright Parking Lot
Dublin Chamber
of Commerce
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 7 of 10
Bridge Park
Staff is proposing a series of micro-mobility parking locations at
existing pocket parks lining Longshore Street. A total of five (5)
pocket parks line Longshore Street; three (3) linking to
Riverside Drive to the west and two (2) linking to Mooney Street
to the east, as shown in Figure 11. These pocket parks feature
accessible paths spanning the width of each block, which
permits access for micro-mobility vehicles. Concurrently, staff
proposes a ‘No Ride Zone’ on Longshore Street, spanning from
John Shields Parkway to Banker Drive. This is similar to a policy
adopted by the City of Columbus in September 2021 for High
Street in the Short North Arts District. Columbus users are not
able to park or ride rentable scooters along North High Street
between Goodale Street and Fifth Avenue. Messaging could
appear in apps for Bird and CoGo that designate Longshore
Street as a ‘No Ride Zone’ for scooters and bicycles, as shown in
Figure 12. Micro-mobility traffic would be funneled to Mooney
Street and to the Emerald Trail on Riverside Drive. Micro-
mobility parking would be designated at the east and west end
of each pocket park and at the corners of each intersection of
Longshore Street at Banker Drive, Bridge Park Avenue, Tuller
Ridge Drive, and John Shields Parkway. Under this scenario, if
micro-mobility users want to access Longshore Street, they
would have to complete their trip in a designated parking area
Figure 10: Street view of proposed scooter parking with proposed space for a temporary bike rack
Figure 11: Existing pocket parks
(magenta) and Longshore ‘No Ride
Zone’ (yellow) in Bridge Park
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 8 of 10
and travel Longshore Street as a pedestrian. Staff is coordinating
the specific locations within the pocket parks for micro-mobility
parking with Crawford Hoying. Furthermore, City staff will work
with Crawford Hoying, Bird and CoGo to educate riders and the
general public to park their vehicles at bike racks and designated
areas. For example, Bird has the ability to customize in-app
messaging and can link riders to a City webpage outlining
appropriate parking and safe riding, prior to the first ride.
Demonstration Pilot Cost Estimates – Signs, Light Poles, and Materials
In order to implement the demonstration pilot as proposed, there would be costs associated with new
signs, replacement light poles, and materials such as the glow pavers.
Further efforts to mitigate sidewalk congestion point to looking at existing infrastructure with a new
lens, specifically the Bridge Street District cycle track. To enhance safety and amplify awareness of the
existing cycle track in the Bridge Street District, staff is proposing a collection of signs that will be
strategically placed along the cycle track route. These proposed signs may be cantilevered on existing
public infrastructure, as shown in Figures 13 through 17, or exist independently within the right-of-
way. These signs could be retroreflective or possibly illuminated.
Staff estimates the costs for each of these signs could range from approximately $200 to $15,000. For
a standard two-inch square post sign with sheeting in aluminum, much like a speed limit sign, the cost
would be closer to $200 and can be made in-house by City staff. For a more complex sign, similar to
the wayfinding signs shown in Figures 16 and 17, the cost is about $15,000. The higher costs of the
wayfinding signs include the concrete base, powder coated aluminum pole, and decorative pole base
as well as the costs for labor. For the demonstration pilot, staff recommends making the lower cost
signs in house and then implementing the rest of the signs pending a successful pilot.
Additionally, some of the proposed cantilevered signs would most likely require the replacement of
some existing light poles that are not designed structurally to withstand the extra weight of additional
signage. Staff would identify a suitable replacement light pole structure that would also support the
proposed signs. There is funding available in this year’s CIP to upgrade a few light poles for this
purpose.
Figure 12: High Street ‘No
Ride Zone’ in Lime app
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 9 of 10
Staff is proposing the 70-square-foot scooter parking area to be identified with pervious or permeable
pavers, which the City has in supply. Figure 18 provides an example of a pervious paver treatment,
showing two different pattern styles. Another option for the Committee to consider is a paver product
Figure 13: Example of sign to amplify awareness
of Downtown Dublin Cycle Track
Figure 14: Example of sign to amplify awareness of
Downtown Dublin Cycle Track
Figure 15: Example of sign to
amplify awareness of
Downtown Dublin Cycle Track
Figure 16: Example of
rectangular sign on existing
wayfinding signs
Figure 17: Example of circular
sign on existing wayfinding
signs
Memo re. Micro-mobility Demonstration Pilot Update
February 10, 2022
Page 10 of 10
that has glow-in-the-dark components, as shown in Figures 19 and 20. This location provides an
opportunity to test glow-in-the-dark pavers for possible application in future mobility projects. The
example shown below is from a manufacturer called Glow Path Pavers, which claim a continuous glow
of their pavers for six (6) to eight (8) hours after dark. Staff is investigating the cost of installing 70
square feet of glow pavers.
If the Committee supports the use of glow pavers, staff could use funding from the Shared Micro-
mobility allocation in the 2022-2026 CIP, which provides funding to develop a bike and/or scooter
share program. For supplemental pavement markings to indicate designated parking areas and the
Historic Dublin Mobility Boulevard, there is funding available in the 2022-2026 CIP.
Recommendation
Staff would like to review several discussion topics with the Public Services Committee including:
1. Is the Committee supportive of the proposed timeline and components outlined for the
demonstration pilot?
2. Is the Public Services Committee supportive of the proposed Bird and CoGo Bike Share fleet
sizes?
3. Is the Public Services Committee supportive of the proposed sidewalk congestion mitigation
measures and locations?
4. Does the Public Services Committee have a preference for traditional pervious pavers or
glow pavers?
5. Does the Public Services Committee have a preference for signs associated with the
demonstration project?
6. Does the Committee have a preference for retroreflective signs or illuminated signs or a
mix?
7. Other considerations.
Figure 18: Example of
pervious pavers
Figure 19: Examples of
Glow Path Pavers
Figure 20: Glow Path
Pavers after dark