Schematic Design Report. Nine Intersection Improvements on Midway Road in the Cities of Carrollton, Dallas and Farmers Branch, and the Town of Addison DaIIas County I T exas CMAQ Project
No. 12 TxDOT Project No. CSJ-0918-45-344Prepared by: Carter & Burgess, Inc. October 24, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION INTRODUCTION TRINITY MILLS ROAD AT MIDWAY ROAD SPRING VALLEY ROAD AT MIDWAY ROAD KELLER SPRINGS ROAD AT MIDWAY ROAD BELTWAY DRIVE AT MIDWAY ROAD LINDBERG DRIVE
AT MIDWAY ROAD MCEWEN ROAD AT MIDWAY ROAD PROTON DRIVE AT MIDWAY ROAD BELMEADEI SOJOURN AT MIDWAY ROAD BOYINGTON I DOOLEY AT MIDWAY ROAD CONCLUSIONS LIST OF FIGURES PAGE158 10 13 15
18 20 22 24 26 123456789 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Trinity Mills Road at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Spring Valley Road at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Keller Springs Road
at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Beltway Drive at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Lindberg Drive at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, McEwen Road at Midway Road 1996 Peak
Hour Traffic, Proton Drive at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Belmeade I Sojourn at Midway Road 1996 Peak Hour Traffic, Boyington I Dooley at Midway Road 68 11 13 16 18 20 22 24
LIST OF TABLES 12345 Capacity Analysis Summary Emissions and Travel Time Benefits Summary Cost Estimate Summary and Project Budget Geometries and Storage Lengths for Trinity Mills Road
at Midway Road Geometric Design Criteria for Trinity Mills Road at Midway Road 23467
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) 678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Geometries and Storage Lengths for Spring Valley Road at Midway Road Geometric Design
Criteria for Spring Valley Road at Midway Road Geometries and Storage Lengths for Keller Springs Road at Midway Road Geometric Design Criteria for Keller Springs Road at Midway Road
Geometries and Storage Lengths for Beltway Drive at Midway Road Geometric Design Criteria for Beltway Drive at Midway Road Geometries and Storage Lengths for Lindberg Drive at Midway
Road Geometric Design Criteria for Lindberg Drive at Midway Road Geometries and Storage Lengths for McEwen Road at Midway Road Geometric Design Criteria for McEwen Road at Midway Road
Geometries and Storage Lengths for Proton Drive at Midway Road Geometric Design Criteria for Proton Drive at Midway Road Geometries and Storage Lengths for Belmeade I Sojourn at Midway
Road Geometric Design Criteria for Belmeade I Sojourn at Midway Road Geometries and Storage Lengths for for Boyington I Dooley at Midway Road Geometric Design Criteria for Boyington
I Dooley at Midway Road Summary of Intersection Geometries for Midway Road CMAQ Projects Breakdown of Cost Estimate and Budget 99 11 12 14 14 16 17 19 19 21 21 23 23 25 25 27 30 APPENDICES
A Count Data B Intersection Analyses C Cost Estimates and Quantities 11
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS INTRODUCTION Trinity Mills Road at Midway Road Spring Valley Road at Midway Road ____ Keller Springs Road at Midway Road 􀁾 Beltway
Drive at Midway Road Lindberg Drive at Midway Road McEwen Road at Midway Road Proton Drive at Midway Road Belmeade I Sojourn at Midway Road . 􀁾 Boyington I Dooley at Midway Road Y •This
Design Report documents the planned improvements, traffic analyses, and design review findings associated with nine intersections located in the Cities of,Carrollton, Dallas and Farmers
Branch, and the Town of Addison, Texas. The nine intersections under study are: flO 􀀱􀀱􀁾 vJ\t;\, /vr c 􀁶􀁾 /: 􀀭􀁊􀀼􀁊􀀱􀀷􀀢􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀧􀀭􀁉 • /. •••••••The study includes data collection,
traffic analyses, and design issues related to 􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁭􀁵􀁭􀁾TxDOT standards. Data Collection Peak hour counts, including truck and pedestrian data, were taken at all nine intersections.
The counts were conducted for the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 to 6:30 P.M. The traffic volume count summaries are provided in Appendix A. Additional field data was collected
on existing signal phasing, lane usage, tum lane lengths for vehicle storage, and any observed operational characteristics that maybe significant. As-built intersection plans were provided
by the Cities of Carrollton, Dallas and Farmers Branch, and the Town of Addison. Traffic signal coordination plans are not included in this project, but optimal coordination of the signals
is assumed. Existing signal coordination is in place and is maintained by each City. Traffic Analyses The traffic operations analyses were performed using procedures outlined in the
1994 Highway Capacity Manual for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The AM and PM peak hours were analyzed for both existing and proposed conditions. Existing conditions assumed
the existing phasing sequences with timing adjustments to provide optimum outputs. Proposed conditions considered both phasing and timing adjustments which would provide optimum solutions
for the proposed geometries. SCHMDGNJ.RPT c&e Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REpORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECfS The operations analyses were performed using the CINEMA 3.0 software package for the signalized intersections and the HCS software package
for the unsignalized intersection. Appendix B contains the detailed analyses outputs. Table 1 summarizes the capacity analysis results, the level of service and the reduction in delay
for each of the intersections. A summary of the projected emissions and travel time benefits resulting from the proposed improvements are shown in Table 2. Table 1 Capacity Analysis
Summary for Midway Road Intersections Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements Final Recommended Improvements Intersection AM PM AM PM AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM Peak PM Peak Peak Peak Peak
Peak Reduction Reduction Peak Peak Reduction Reduction Hour Hour Hour Hour in Delay' in Delay' Hour Hour in Delay' in Delay' LOS F F D D 23.6 seclveh 27.6 seclveh -Trinity Mills Road
VIC 1.01 1.13 0.93 0.94 39.3% 46.0% LOS E F D D 22.B seclveh 55.3 sedveh Spring Valley Road VIC 1.02 1.08 0.85 0.93 46.3% 64.2% LOS E D F C -10.5 secJveh 3.5 secJveh D C 23.4 sedveh
3.6 seC'lveh Keller Springs Road VIC 1.01 0.94 1.11 0.82 -21.0"10 . 13.5% 0.96 o.n 46.8% 13.9% LOS􀁾 D C 1.5 seC'lveh osedveh Beltway Drive "'----VIC 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85 4.0% 0% LOS
D F C D 5.7 sedveh 34.7 seclveh C C 7.2 sedveh 46.9 sedveh Undberg Drive VIC 0.93 1.12 0.85 0.91 21.3% 49.3% 0.77 0.90 27.0% 66.6% LOS D D C C 8.2secJveh 10.7 secJvehEB I I McEwen Road
VIC 0.91 0.96 0.76 0.78 30.8% 37.5% LOS C D C D 2.5 seclveh 2.0sedveh C C 1.4 seC'lveh 9.5 sedveh Proton Drive VIC o.n 1.01 o.n 0.90 12.8% 6.3% 0.75 0.75 4.4% 29.9% LOS E E D D 20.8sedveh
19.0sedveh D D 29.7 secJveh 20.4 seC'lveh Belrneade I Sojourn VIC 1.18 1.05 0.99 0.91 35.6% 41.0% 0.91 0.89 50.8% 44.1% Boyington I Dooley LOS F F A B 896sedveh 888 seclveh (existing
stop controlled) VIC >1.0 >1.0 0.78 0.69 99.6% 98.7% • Note: Reduction in delay is compared to the calculated delay from existing conditions. LOS = Level of service VIC = Volume I Capacity
SCHMDGNJ.RPT 2 C&B Job # 95-2211-<l10
SCHEMATICDESIGN REpORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Table 2 Emissions and Travel Time Benefits Summary Midway Road Benefits 􀁷􀁩􀁾􀁨 Recommended Improvements Intersection Annual Hydrocarbons
Emissions Annual Travel Time Reduction in Pounds HC I Year Savings in Dollars I Year Trinity Mills Road 7,049 $168,170 Spring Valley Road 7,242 $288,100 Keller Springs Road 1,014 $59,980
Beltway Drive 11 $3,720 Lindberg Drive 4,048 $113,970 McEwen Road 569 $44,740 Proton Drive 820 $26,630 Belmeade/Sojourn 3,411 $108,910 􀁾 BoyingtonlDooJey 3,774 $185,630 Totals: 27,938
$999,850 • Note: Traveltime savings per year were calculated for the AM and PM peak hours only, and weekdays only. Dollar value of time was assumed at $7/hour. The hydrocarbon savings
for BoyingtonlDooley was assumed at 100 grams for both peak periods. No actual value for existing was available with no signal at the intersection. Design Issues Design drawings have
been developed based on the traffic analysis for each intersection. Construction cost estimates estimates and the corresponding project budget is summarized in Table 3. Every attempt
has been made to work within the original budget that was established by the Dallas County CMAQ Program office, while also maintaining the established design standards and criteria.
Minimum design criteria and standards have been met throughout the project, and desirable standards have been met where possible. . Table 3 shows that some individual projects have exceeded
their speci'f1ed bUdget, the most significant of which is Trinity Mills Road. However, several projects are also shown to come in below their specified budgets, which would allow the
overall budget to be met if the funds could be redistributed. SCHMDGNJ.RPT 3 C&B Job # 95-2211.010
SCHEMA77CDESIGNREpORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECFS Table 3 Construction Cost Estimates and Project Budget Construction ROW Other Project Under "' Intersection Jurisdiction Cost Cost Costs*
Budget (Over) Budget Trinity Mills Carrollton/$558,937 $248,184 $196,524 $750,000 ($253,645) Road Dallas Spring Valley Addison/Farmers Road $443,394 $156,060 $183,620 $1,750,000 $966,926
Branch Keller Carrollton/I Springs Addison $292,865 $156,060 $106,261 $530,000 ($25,186) Road Beltway Addison $29,785 $12,204 $10,834 $55,000 $2,177 Drive 􀁾 Lindberg Addison $58,582
$13,932 $21,231 $105,000 $11,255 􀁾 Drive McEwen Farmers $94,316 $27,000 $32,885 $115,000 ($39,201 ) Road Branch Addison/Proton Drive Farmers $103.391 $33,372 $35,783 $115,000 ($57,546)
Branch Belmeade/Carrollton $167,888 $68,256 $58,903 $220,000 ($75,047) Sojourn \ Boyington/Addison/Dooley $55,479 $23,976 $21,439 $155,000 $54,106 Carrollton Totals: $1,804,637 $739,044
$667,481 $3,795,000 $583,838 • Other Costs consist of 20% PS & E cost plus County and State construction/administration costs as listed in Appendix C. SCHMDGNJ.RPT 4 C&8 Job # 95-2211.010
SCHEMATIC DESIGNREPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECfS SPRING VALLEY ROAD Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing traffic conditions at the Midway Road intersection with Spring Valley
Road shows operations at LOS "E" for the AM peak and LOS "F" for the PM peak hour. Each of the four approaches currently have an exclusive left turn lane. The northbound and southbound
approaches also have an exclusive right turn lane. Both roadways have six-lane cross sections. Existing peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 2. Proposed CMAQ Improvements The
proposed CMAQ improvements would result in all four approaches having dual left turn lanes and an exclusive right tum lane. The analysis of these improvements show LOS "0" operations
for the AM and PM peak hours, with room for some growth in traffic. Recommended storage lengths are shown in Table 6. Table 7 lists the design criteria used for the geometric design
of the intersection. Midway Road is currently under design for widening to an eight-lane roadway between LBJ Freeway and Spring Valley Road. The current design for this widening is accounted
for in the geometrics for the intersection. >. 􀁉􀁾􀁾 "00 """ 􀁾􀁾 􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁾 M_M ---ll)1X)0> -0> ll) 􀁾􀁴􀀭.. C'oI Figure 2 1996 Peak Hour Traffic for Midway Road @Spring Valley Road
IX) _ -<0_ "-."..". <""0"...M_ "..".". "_<-0-IX)M <0 """. I ! I t--329/247 I I "---482/1240 ..) t 􀁜􀀭􀁾 I (---319/369 Spring ValleY_._ -----------1----,--_ Road 287/165 f! t ,,-. 937
/625 --􀀭􀁾 I "', ' ( Ii! I 342/160) III I 􀁌􀁾􀁾􀁑 􀁾􀀱􀁾􀀺􀁘 • AM Pe_aJLl:iour Traffic XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic SCHMDGN3.RPT 8 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMAT1C DES1GNREPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Table 6 Geometries and Storage Lengths for Spring Valley Road at Midway Road Approach Move-Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements ment #
of Lanes Storage Length (ft) Storage Length (m) # of Lanes Storage Length (ft) Storage Length (m Left 1 200 61 2 150 46 Eastbound Through 2.5 3 Right 0.5 N/A N/A 1 200 61 Left 1 115
35 2 250 76 Westbound Through 2.5 3 Right 0.5 N/A N/A 1 250 76 Left 1 160 49 2 225 69 Northbound Through 3 3 Right 1 110 34 1 N/A N/A Left 1 200 61 2 225 69 Isouthbound Through 3 3.5
Riaht 1 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Table 7 Geometric Design Criteria for Spring Valley Road at Midway Road Measurements Item Comments Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Posted Speed,
MPH (KPH) 35 (60) 40 (65) 35(60) 35 (60) Posted speed limit Design Vehicle WB-62 WB-62 WB-50 WB-50 0& PManual, 4-710 D Width ofTravel Lanes, Ft(m) 􀁾12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6)
o& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Width of Right Tum Lane, Ft (m) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) Width of Left Tum Lane, Ft (m) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) Offset to Face of Curb, Ft
(m) 2(0.6) 2(0.6) 2(0.6) 2(0.6) 0& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Median Width, Ft (m) 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) o& PManual, 4-302 B Right of Way Width, Ft (m) N/A 10 (3.0) 10 (3.0) 15
(4.6) From edge of proposed curb to proposed ROW Sidewalk Width, Ft (m) 5(1.5) 5(1.5) 5(1.5) 5(1.5) ADA Standards Clear Zone Width, Ft (m) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) o&
PManual, Fig. 4-21 Turning Radii, Ft (m) 50 (15) 50 (15) 50 (15) 50 (15) 0& PManual, 4-710 D Transition Length, Ft (m) R1. 300 (91) Rl, Ft (m) N/A 125 (38) 125 (38) R2, 150 (46) . 0&
PManual, 4-710 D, AASHTO R2, Ft (m) Storage Requirements, Ft (m) L-400(182) L-400(122) L-300 (92) L-400(122) Computed results of analysis. R-200 (61) R-200(61) R-200 (61) Actual Storage,
Fl (m) L-400(182) L-400(122) L-300 (92) L-400(122) Within standards from 0 & PManual, 4-R-200 (61) R-200(61) R-200 (61i 710 D, AASHTO SCHMDGN.l.RPT 9 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT KELLER SPRINGS ROAD Existing Conditions MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Analysis of the existing traffic conditions at the Midway Road intersection with Keller Springs
Road shows operations at LOS "E" for the AM peak and LOS "0" for the PM peak hour. Each of the four approaches currently have an exclusive left tum lane. The eastbound approach has an
exclusive right turn lane and the northbound and southbound approaches also have short right turn separations. Keller Springs Road is a two-lane roadway on the east side and a four-lane
roadway on the west side. Midway Road has a six-lane cross section. Existing peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 3. Proposed CMAQ Improvements The proposed CMAQ improvements
include widening the northbound, eastbound and southbound approaches to include dual left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. The eastbound approach would also be widened to
include two through lanes, which would narrow quickly to one lane on the east side. These improvements showed intersection operations would be at a LOS of "F" in the AM peak hour and
LOS "C" in the PM peak hour. Although the physical capacity increases with the proposed geometric improvements, the worsening of intersection operations in the AM peak is due to the
change in signal phasing as a result of the dual left turns and the heavy eastbound right turn movement. The dual left turn lanes prohibit the use of permissive left turns on the green
phase for the through and right turning traffic. Therefore, due to the fact that the 840 right-turning vehicles requires a significant portion of the green time, the left-turning traffic
actually has less opportunity per cycle, even though there would now be two lanes to move and store the traffic in. Additional Improvements The existing eastbound through volume (less
than 100 vehicles during the peak hours) does not currently warrant two lanes. Therefore, it is recommended that the existing lane balance be maintained by carrying only one eastbound
through lane across the intersection. It is also recommended that a dual right turn be installed for the eastbound approach. This would still result in recommending the widening of the
eastbound approach to five lanes but with the following geometries: a dual left turn, one through lane and a dual right turn. These changes to the recommended improvements would result
in operations of LOS "0" in the AM peak and LOS "C" in the PM peak. The recommended storage lengths are shown in Table 8. Table 9 shows the design criteria used for the geometric design
of this intersection. Once the portion of Keller Springs under Addison Airport is opened, a re-evaluation of the lane assignments will be necessary. SCHMDGN3.RPT 10 C&B Job # 95·2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REpORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS o en 0 co OD N ... 0 I fi 􀁾􀀮 6/50 , 'I ( ... 􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭 6/66 .,.), -.: (----17 /71 􀁋􀁥􀁉􀁬􀁒􀁏􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁽􀀹􀂧􀀭􀀭􀀭 '_-.-.-r--'-------.-􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀹
􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁟I ... \ i (. 840 /228 -) I I i I LEG.END XXX -AM.E.ea..k.HIDALTraffic xxx PM Peak Hour Traffic Figure 3 1996 Peak Hour Traffic for Midway Road @Keller Springs Road Table
8 Geometries and Storage Lengths for Keller Springs Road at Midway Road Existing Proposed CMAQ Final Recommended Approach Move-Improvements Improvements ment #of Storage Storage #of
Storage Storage #of Storage Storage Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Left 1 150 46 2 150 46 2 150 46 Eastbound Through 1 2 1 Righi
1 N/A N/A 1 300 91 2 100 30 Left 1 50 15 1 50 15 1 100 30 Westbound Through 0.5 0.5 0.5 Righi 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Left 1 210 64 2 200 61 2 200 61 Northbound Through 3
3 3 Right 1 50 15 1 200 61 1 200 61 Left 1 150 46 2 200 61 2 150 46 Southbound Through 3 3 3 Richt 1 50 15 1 200 61 1 250 76 SCHMDGN3.RPT 11 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Table 9 Geometric Design Criteria for Keller Springs Road at Midway Road Measurements Item Comments Northbound SOuthbound Eastbound
Westbound Posted Speed, MPH (KPH) 40 (65) 40 (65) 30 (50) 30(50) Posted speed limit Design Vehicle WB-62 WB-62 WB-50 WB-50 0& PManual, 4-710 D Width of Travel Lanes, FI (m) 11 (3.3)
11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) N/A o&PManual, Fig. 4-26 Width of Right Tum Lane, Ft (m) 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) 10 (3.0) N/A Width of Left Tum Lane, Ft (m) 10 (3.0) 11 (3.3) 10 (3.0) 11 (3.3) Offset to
Face of Curb, Ft (m) 2(0.6) 2(0.6) 2 (0.6) 2(0.6) o&PManual, Fig. 4-26 Median Width, Ft (m) N/A N/A 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) o&PManual, 4-302 B Right of Way Width, Ft (m) 10 (3.0) 10 (3.0)
10 (3.0) N/A From edge of proposed curb to proposed ROW Sidewalk Width, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A N/A ADA Standards Clear Zone Width, Ft (m) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 0& PManual,
Fig. 4-21 Turning Radii, Ft (m) 75 (23) 75 (23) 50 (15) 50 (15) 0& PManual, 4-710 D Transition Length, Ft (m) R1, Ft (m) 132 (40) 125 (38) 127 (35.5) N/A 0& PManual, 4-710 D, AASHTO
R2, Ft (m) Storage Requirements, Ft (m) L-400(122) L-300 (92) L-300 (92) N/A Computed results of analysis. R-200 (61) R-250 (76) R-200(61) Actual Storage, Ft (m) L-420 (128) L400(124)
L-275(83) N/A Within standards from 0 &PManual, 4-R-200 (61\ R-200 (61\ R-200 (61\ 710 D, AASHTO SCHMDGNJ.RPT 12 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGNREpORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS BELTWAY DRIVE Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Midway Road and Beltway Drive shows
operations at LOS "0" for the AM peak and LOS "C" for the PM peak hour. Each of the four approaches currently have an exclusive left turn lane. The eastbound, northbound and southbound
approaches each have an exclusive right turn Jane. Beltway Drive is a two-lane roadway. Midway Road has a six-lane cross section. Existing peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure
4. Proposed CMAQ Improvements The proposed CMAQ improvements include lengthening the storage lengths for the northbound and westbound turn lanes. The proposed restriping/marking for
the eastbound approach is currently in place. These improvements would result in maintaining the intersection operations at the same LOS, but with slightly less average delay per vehicle
in the AM peak. The recommended storage lengths are shown in Table 10. Table 11 shows the design criteria used for the geometric design of this intersection. Figure 4 1996 Peak Hour
Traffic for Midway Road @Beltway Road 1>-I 􀁾􀁾 '"'C 0 In 􀁉􀁾􀁾 co 0> cc II_n ."."..: -co ..,. -t-I.... In('o,l W I r, I '\-_ 14/44 Ii! ! ---71/145 􀁾􀀩 ,\-.1 ,--330/135 􀁂􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁙
--+__L _ 129/68 __ }! -4\, t (. 108/138-----I I! i 316/164 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 i ; 􀁾 I I en r-C"') 􀁾􀁾􀁾 , ;;;;;;; [ '0 􀁾 cc .... ('0,1. 􀁌􀁭􀁅􀁾􀀮􀁄􀀮 i xxx -AM Peak HQULIraffic XXX PM Peak
Hour Traffic SCHMDGNJ,RPT 13 C&B Job # 95·2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGNREPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Table 10 Geometries and Storage Lengths for Beltway Drive at Midway Road Approach Move-Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements ment # of
Lanes Storage Length (ft) Storage Length (m) # of Lanes Storage Length (ft) Storage Length (m Left 1 75 23 1 150 46 Eastbound Through 1 1 Right 1 75 23 1 150 46 Left 1 125 38 1 150 46
Westbound Through 0.5 0.5 Right 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Left 1 115 35 1 150 46 Northbound Through 3 3 Right 1 75 23 1 150 46 Left 1 100 30 1 100 30 Southbound Through 3 3 Riaht 1 100
30 1 100 30 Table 11 Geometric Design Criteria for Beltway Drive at Midway Road Measurements Item Comments Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Posted Speed, MPH (KPH) 40 (65) 40
(65) 30 (50) 30 (50) Posted speed limit Design Vehicle WS-S2 WB-62 WB-50 WB-50 0& PManual, 4-710 D Width of Travel Lanes, Ft (m) 11 (3.3) N/A N/A 12 (3.6) o& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Width
of Right Tum Lane, Ft (m) 11 (3.3) N/A N/A N/A Width of Left Tum Lane, Ft (m) 11 (3.3) N/A N/A 11 (3.3) Offset to Face of Curb, Ft (m) 2(0.6) N/A N/A 2(0.6) o&PManual, Fig. 4-26 Median
Width, FI (m) N/A N/A N/A N/A Right of Way Width, Ft (m) 10 (3.0) N1A N/A N/A From edge of proposed curb to proposed ROW Sidewalk Width, Ft (m) 5 (1.5) N/A N/A N/A ADA Standards Clear
Zone Width, Ft (m) 1.5 (0.5) N/A N/A 1.5 (0.5) 0& PManual, Fig. 4-21 Tuming Radii, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A 50 (15) 0& PManual, 4-710 D Transition Length, Ft (m) R1, Fl (m) 125 (38) N/A N/A
125 (38) o&PManual, 4-710 D, AASHTO R2, Ft (m) Storage Requirements, Ft (m) L-150 (46) N/A L-150 (46) L-150 (46) R-150 (46) R-15O(46) Computed results of analysis. Actual Storage, Ft
(m) L-150 (46) L-100 (30) L-75 (23) L-150 (46) Within standards from 0 & PManual, 4-R-150 (46) R-100 (30) R-75 (23) R-N/A 710 D, AASHTO SCHMDGNJ.RPT 14 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REpORT LINDBERG DRIVE Existing Conditions MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Analysis of the existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Midway Road and Lindberg Drive
shows operations at LOS "0" for the AM peak and LOS "F" for the PM peak hour. The northbound and southbound approaches currently have an exclusive left turn lane. The eastbound and westbound
approaches each have an exclusive right turn lane. Lindberg Drive is a two-lane roadway, east of the intersection and a three-lane roadway west of the intersection. Midway Road has a
six-lane cross section. Existing peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 5. Proposed CMAQ Improvements The proposed CMAQ improvements are to widen the westbound approach to include
an exclusive left turn lane and to increase the right turning radius for the northbound approach. The eastbound approach is shown in the schematic as currently having an exclusive left
tum lane and a through right lane. However, a field survey showed the existing signing and markings for a through-left lane and an exclusive right turn lane. With the addition of an
exclusive left turn lane on the westbound approach, it would be advantageous to complement the left turn movement with an exclusive left turn lane on the eastbound approach. The proposed
CMAQ improvements, in combination with restriping the eastbound approach for an exclusive left turn lane and a through-right lane, would result in a LOS of "C" for the AM peak and LOS
"0" for the PM peak. Additional Improvements There is capacity available for some traffic growth with the proposed CMAQ improvements, but the eastbound and westbound approaches would
still be operating at LOS "F" and "E", respectively, in the PM peak. Alternatives were evaluated with the goal of providing a more balanced LOS for each of the approaches as well as
an acceptable LOS for the intersection itself. The first alternative consisted of adding a dual left turn at the southbound approach along with the proposed CMAQ improvements and increasing
the storage lengths for many of the turn bays. This resulted in approximately the same average delay for the overall intersection, but the LOS for each of the separate approaches was
more balanced, with the northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches at LOS liD" and the southbound approach at LOS "c" in the PM peak. The second alternative added a right tum to
the eastbound approach along with the proposed CMAQ improvements. The resultant evaluation showed the overall intersection LOS as "c" in the AM and PM peaks, with the eastbound and westbound
approaches at LOS "0" in the PM peak. All other approaches are at LOS "c" or better. This represents a better result than the proposed CMAQ improvements appear to promote, but would
also be more costly. Recommended storage lengths are shown in Table 12. Table 13 shows the design criteria used for the geometric design of this intersection. SCHMDGN3.RPT 15 C&B Job
# 95·2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REpORT L,E-G.!=ND XXX -􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁊􀁌􀁉􀀺􀁉􀀮􀀮􀁑􀁵􀁌􀁉􀁲􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣 XXX PM Peak Hour Traffic MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Figure 5 1996 Peak Hour Traffic for Midway Road
@Lindberg Drive Table 12 Geometries and Storage Lengths for Lindberg Drive at Midway Road Existing Proposed CMAQ Final Recommended Move-Improvements Improvements Approach ment #of Storage
Storage #of Storage Storage #of Storage Storage Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Left 0.5 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 100 30 Eastbound Through
0.5 0.5 1 Right 1 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Left 0.5 N/A N/A 1 125 38 1 100 30 Westbound Through 0.5 1 1 Right 1 125 38 1 125 38 1 150 46 Left 1 160 49 1 160 49 1 160 49 Northbound
Through 2.5 2.5 2.5 Right 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Left 1 200 61 1 200 61 1 200 61 Southbound Through 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rieht 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A SCHMDGN3.RPT 16
C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATICDESIGN REPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Table 13 Geometric Design Criteria for Lindberg Drive at Midway Road Measurements Item Comments Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Posted Speed, MPH (KPH) 40 (65) 40(65) 30(50) 30 (50) Posted speed limit Design Vehicle WB-62 WB-62 WB-50 WB-50 0& PManual, 4-710 D Width ofTravel Lanes, Ft (m) N/A N/A 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6)
0& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Width of Right Turn Lane, Ft (m) N/A N/A 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) Width of Left Tum Lane, Ft (m) N/A N/A 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) Offset to Face of Curb, Ft (m) N/A N/A 2(0.6)
2(0.6) 0& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Median Width, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A N/A Right of Way Width, Ft (m) varies N/A N/A N/A From edge of proposed curb to proposed ROW Sidewalk Width, Ft (m) N/A
N/A N/A N/A ADA Standards Clear Zone Width, Ft (m) 1.5 (0.5) N/A 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 0& PManual, Fig. 4-21 Tuming Radii, Ft (m) 75 (23) N/A 50 (15) N/A 0& PManual, 4-710 D Transition
Length, Ft (m) R1, 184 (56) R1, Ft (m) N/A N/A R1. R2, 320 (98) 0& PManual, 4-710 D, AASHTO R2, Ft ((m) Storage Requirements, Ft (m) L-160(49) L-200 (61) L-100 (30) L-100 (30) Computed
results of analysis. R-150 (46) Actual Storage, Ft (m) L-160 (49) L-200(61) L-100 (30) L-125 (38) Within standards from 0 &PManual, 4-R-N/A R-N/A R-N/A R-150 (46) 710 D, AASHTO SCHMDGN3.RPT
17 C&B Job # 95-2211-Q1 0
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT PROTON DRIVE Existing Conditions MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Analysis of the existing traffic conditions at the Midway Road intersection with Proton Drive shows
operations at LOS "C" for the AM peak and LOS "0" for the PM peak hour. The northbound and southbound approaches currently have an exclusive left turn lane. The eastbound approach has
an exclusive right turn lane. Proton Drive is a three-lane roadway. Midway Road has a six-lane cross section. Existing peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 7. Proposed CMAQ Improvements
The proposed CMAQ improvements include widening the existing two lanes on the westbound .approach and restriping these lanes to an exclusive left turn lane and a through-right lane.
The eastbound approach is proposed to be widened to include dual right turn lanes and a through-left lane. These improvements showed intersection operations would improve slightly but
the LOS would still be "C" in the AM peak hour and liD" in the PM peak hour. Additional Improvements Various phasing alternatives were tested for different geometric alternatives. including
the proposed CMAQ improvements. However, analysis showed that the existing laneage could be used along with restriping of the westbound approach. improved signal phasing, and increased
storage lengths. The westbound approachwould be restriped to match the existing eastbound approach for an exclusive right turn lane and a through-left lane. This alternative would provide operations at LOS "C" for the AM
and PM peak hours. The recommended storage lengths are shown in Table 16. Table 17 shows the design criteria used for the geometric design of this intersection. ) Proton Drive 􀁉􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁅􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁇􀁅�
�􀁄 Xxx -A.MEeJlkJ::!.ouLTraffi.c xxx PM Peak Hour Traffic SCHMDGN3.RPT 90/107 161/26 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 240/77 20 Figure 7 1996 Peak Hour Traffic for Midway Road @Proton Drive C&B Job # 95-2211'()10
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT MIDWAyROAD CMAQ PROJECfS Table 16 'i': Geometries and Storage Lengths for Proton Drive at Midway Road 􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀮􀀢 􀀮􀁾 Existing Proposed CMAQ Final Recommended
Approach Move-Improvements Improvements ment #of Storage Storage #of Storage Storage #of Storage Storage Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Lanes Length (ft) Length (m) Lanes Length (ft) Length
(m) Left 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Eastbound Through 0.5 0.5 0.5 Right 1 80 24 2 100 30 1 100 30 Left 0.5 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Westbound Through 1 0.5 0.5 Right 0.5
N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Left 1 85 26 1 150 46 1 175 53 Northbound Through 2.5 2.5 2.5 Right 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Left 1 100 30 1 200 61 1 250 76 Southbound Through
2.5 2.5 2.5 RiQht 0.5 N/A NlA 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Table 17 Geometric Design Criteria for Proton Drive at Midway Road Measurements Item Comments Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Posted Speed, MPH (KPH) 40(65) 40 (65) 30(50) 30 (50) Posted speed limit Design Vehicle WB-WB-62 WB-62 WB-50 WB-50 0& PManual, 4-710 D Width ofTravel Lanes, Ft (m) N/A N/A) 12 (3.6)
12 (3.6) o&PManual, Fig. 4-26 Width of Right Tum Lane, Ft (m) N/A N/A 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) Width of Left Tum Lane, Ft (m) N/A N/A 11 (3.3) 11 (3.3) Offset to Face of Curb, Ft (m) 2(0.6)
2(0.6) 2 (0.6) 2(0.6) o&PManual, Fig. 4-26 Median Width, Ft (m) N/A N/A 12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) 0& PManual, 4-302 B Right of Way Width, Ft (m) 10 (3.3) N/A 15(4.7) 15 (4.7) From edge of proposed
curb to proposed ROW Sidewalk Width, Ft (m) 5(1.5) 5 (1.5) 5(1.5) 5 (1.5) ADA Standards Clear Zone Width, Ft (m) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 0& PManual, Fig. 4-21 Turning
Radii, Ft (m) 75 (23) 75 (23) 50 (15) 50 (15) 0& PManual, 4-710 D Transition Length, Ft (m) R1, Ft (m) 125 (38) 125 (38) N/A N/A 0& PManual, 4-710 D, AASHTO R2, Ft (m) Storage Requirements,
Ft (m) L-175 (53) L-250 (76) N/A Computed results of analysis. R-100(30) Actual Storage, Ft (m) L-280 (86) L-450(142) N/A) N/A Within standards from 0 & PManual, 4-R-200 (61) R-200 (61)
710 D, AASHTO SCHMDGN3.RPT 21 C&B Job # 95-221 1-{l10
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS BOYINGTON I DOOLEY Existing Conditions Analysis of the Midway Road intersection with Boyington Drive and Dooley Drive shows operations
at LOS "F" for the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection is stop sign controlled for the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound traffic is heavy enough to
prevent adequate gaps in the traffic for the eastbound and westbound traffic to travel through the intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches (Midway Road) each have an exclusive
left turn lane, but again the gaps in traffic are not sufficient for all of the left turning traffic to make it through the intersection in a reasonable amount of time. The eastbound
approach has an exclusive right turn lane. Boyington and Dooley Drives both have two-lane cross-sections outside of the intersection. Midway Road has a six-lane cross section. Existing
peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 9. Proposed CMAQ Improvements The proposed CMAQ improvements are to signalize the intersection and to provide an exclusive right turn lane
for the eastbound approach and an exclusive left turn lane for the westbound approach. These improvements would involve some widening of the turning radii, but the roadway widths will
support an additional lane with new pavement markings and channelization markings. The AM peak hour LOS would be "A" and the PM peak hour operations would be LOS "B" with these improvements.
Due to another improvement project in the area, the signal is scheduled to be in place before the CMAQ project is scheduled. Therefore, the cost of the signal improvement is not included
in the intersection costs. Recommended storage lengths are listed in Table 20. Table 21 shows the design criteria used for the geometric design of this intersection. ( C 􀁾􀁅􀁃􀁜􀁌􀀭
OJ---Q .p GAt'--LS-. E gl€Yt-J l 􀁾􀁾􀂣􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾 Nf6-. Dooley Drive ...-􀀮􀀬􀀭􀀭􀁾 '\ : ! I , I I -: c..o.. ON ---"-;-r-.".,'.N.,.on q.., .. I t I \ I I ( I .. 􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀶􀁾􀁾􀀰 Boyington
...J , ,,-. ,,--6/32 􀁾􀀭D􀀭ri􀀭ve-----------+I ---,--------.. 0/17 ) 010 -􀁾 18/108 ---I.. I.E.GEND 2.<XX -AM 􀁐􀁥􀁾􀁉􀁌􀁉􀀺􀁩􀁑􀁵􀁲Tr..alflc XX PM Peak Hour Traffic Figure 9 1996 Peak
Hour Traffic for Midway Road @Boyington/Dooley SCHMDGN3,RPT 24 C&B Job # 95·2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Table 20 Geometries and Storage Lengths for Boyington/Dooley at Midway Road IApproach Move-Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements ment
#of Lanes Storage Length (tt) Storage Length (m) #ofLanes Storage Length (tt) Storage Length (m Lett 0.25 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Eastbound Through 0.50 0.5 Right 0.25 N/A N/A 1 200 61 Left
0.25 N/A N/A 1 100 30 Westbound Through 0.5 0.5 Right 0.25 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A . N/A Left 1 100 30 1 150 46 Northbound Through 2.5 2.5 Right 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Left 1 100 30 1 100 30
Southbound Through 2.5 2.5 Riaht 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Table 21 Geometric Design Criteria for Boyington/Dooley at Midway Road Measurements Item Comments Northbound Southbound Eastbound
Westbound Posted Speed, MPH (KPH) 40 (65) 40 (65) 30 (50) 30 (50) Posted speed limit Design Vehicle WB-62 WB-62 WB-50 WB-50 0& PManual, 4-710 D Width of Travel Lanes, Ft (m) N/A N/A
12 (3.6) 12 (3.6) o& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Width of Right Tum Lane, Ft (m) N/A N/A 11 (3.3) N/A Width of of Left Tum Lane, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A 12 (3.6) Offset to Face of Curb, Ft (m) 2(0.6)
N/A 2(0.6) 2(0.6) o& PManual, Fig. 4-26 Median Width, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0& PManual, 4-302 B Right of Way Width, Fl (m) varies N/A N/A varies From edge of proposed curb to proposed
ROW Sidewalk Width, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A N/A ADA Standards Clear Zone Width, Ft (m) 1.5 (0.5) N/A 1.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) o& PManual, Fig. 4-21 Tuming Radii, Ft (m) 75 (23) N/A 50 (15) 50
(15) 0& PManual, 4-710 D Transition Length, Ft (m) R1, Ft (m) N/A N/A N/A N/A o& PManual, 4-710 D, AASHTO R2, Ft (m) Storage Requirements, Ft (m) L-150 (46) N/A L-100 (30) Computed results
of analysis. R-200 (61) Actual Storage, Ft (m) L-100 (30) N/A L-N/A L-85(26) Within standards from 0 & PManual, 4-R-N/A R-200 (61) R-N/A 710 D, AASHTO SCHMDGNJ.RPT 25 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REpORT CONCLUSIONS MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS TraffiC operations analyses were performed for each of the nine Midway Road intersections to provide optimum operations
for the cost of improvements to each intersection. All intersections will meet the minimum level of service "D" standards for the AM and PM peak hour with the recommended improvements,
as shown in Table 22 on the following pages. A summary of the estimated costs for each intersection is shown in Table 23. This table shows that the estimated costs for improvement will
exceed the bUdget for the Midway Road intersections at Trinity Mills Road, Keller Springs Road, McEwen Road, Proton Road, and Belmeade/Sojourn. The estimated costs for the other four
intersections come in under their respective budgets. The listing of design elements and estimated costs included for each intersection are given in Appendix C and the design elements
are shown on the schematic design drawings. All nine intersections within the Midway Road corridor will will meet or exceed the minimum design standards from the TxDOT Operations and
Procedures Manual and the AASHTO standards from the 1994 edition of design standards. Wherever possible, the recommended standards were used. SCHMDGNJ.RPT 26 C&B Job # 95-2211-ll10
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REpORT Table 22 Summary of Intersection Geometries for Midway Road CMAQ Projects MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements Final Recommended Improvements
􀁇􀁥􀁡􀁭􀀮􀁾􀁬􀁣􀁳 Storage Storage P.... Hour 􀁁􀁷􀁯􀀬􀀢􀀬􀁾 􀁇􀁥􀁡􀁭􀁥􀁾􀁾􀀮 Storage Siorage Awo,",h 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁭􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁾􀀮 Siorage Storage Awo,",h Nol Length L.ngth Traffic VoltJTe. LOS
Inlersection Not Lenglh Length LOS lnterseclioo Nol length length lOS IntersecUoo Intersecloo Awo,",h Movement L:nes (Feel) (M.I...) PJ/j PM (AMI'M) lOS Movernet11 L",•• (Feel) (M.l...)
(AMI'M) LOS Movemenl l ..... (Feel) (Melli.) (AMI'M) lOS Corrmenlo left 1 350 107 162 331 L.n 2 250 76 Len 􀁾••re CUTonay J'" Eas_ TlYOlJgh 2 1,370 1,227 FIF PJ/jPeak ThrOlJgh 1 OIC
􀁾 TlYough 􀁾􀀮􀁲􀁬􀁨􀁯􀁷􀀬􀀬􀁟F¥I 1 200 61 445 139 lOSF, RlgIiI 1 225 69 LOS 0, RlgN 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀮 Tho"llelono left 1 NlA NlA 295 205 0.1.,. =NlA, Left 2 250 76 Del.,. =36.4 len 􀁾􀀮􀁉􀁯􀁦􀁴􀁌􀁭􀁴�
�􀁴 Trinity Mils Wesl!lo<md TIvoug, 1.5 646 ',f05 F/F vfc-1.01 rll'ough 2 Doll sec/Veh, TlYough 􀁾􀁔􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁯􀁬􀁯􀁲 ......_ Road Rig>! 0.5 NlA NlA 37 257 RI\tI 1 400 122 vic =0.93 Riglil
\engtl needed b iii wedleft 1 100 30 139 376 l.n 2 300 91 lon bOl.nlleltlLmrreybeCW41o CBI'rolllcnl 'blt'lx>uoo TlYOlJgh 3 347 1,764 FIF 􀁾 TIl'OlJgh 3 00 􀁾 TlYOlJgh ..Iod. Dallas RlgIiI
1 III 24 117 97 lOSF, RlI1JI 1 150 46 LOS 0, RlgIiI lon 1 125 38 286 127 Del.,. =NlA, l.ft 2 200 61 DeI.,..32.4 Left Soutl'bouoo TlYOlJgh 2.5 2,122 577 FIF vic =1.13 TlYough 3 00 .ocIveh,
TlYOlJgh Righi 0.5 NlA NlA 149 217 Righi 1 200 61 vic. 0.94 Ri\tl Loft 1 200 61 2& 165 l.ft 2 150 46 L.n "'dw., Rood .. CUlentt;' Easlbou1d TlYOlJgh 2.5 937 625 ElF 􀁾 TlYough 3 Doll
AMPoak TlYough LOldor deo9llo:-*'l RIghi 􀁏􀁾 NlA NlA 342 '60 lO$E. Righi 1 200 61 lOS 0, Righi laanlighll8nlt:roiSloft 1 115 35 319 369 0.1.,. =49.2 l.ft 2 250 76 DeI.,.·26.4 l.ft secticnboMMlLBJFrw
-SpIing Valley W••l!lo<md TIYOlJgh 2.5 <ta2 1.240 ElF .eclveh, TlYOlJgh 3 00 sec/Veh, TlYough inY end SpMgVoloy Rood. Road Rlitli 0.5 NlA NlA 329 247 vic =1.02 1.02 RlgIiI 1 250 76 vic
=O.BS Ri\tll iTno-.;dorirghosl.ft 1 160 49 174 418 Lell 2 225 69 Left fa-..tod b ,," .. Addison I f\br1I'OOuoo TIYough 3 1,468 1,646 ElF PMPe'" TlYOlJgh 3 00 􀁾 TlYOlJgh i'nl>""'"anilionl.
Tla F<rmers Rlg,1 I 110 34 361 311 lOSF, Right 1 NlA NlA lOS 0, RI\tII InlMl«:lon llIIWd nI Brooch l.ft 1 200 61 259 350 Del.,. =86.1 Lell 2 225 69 0.1.,. =30.8 l.ft 􀁾􀀱􀀧􀀮􀁬􀁬􀁏􀁓􀁄􀁷􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁴�
� SouIl'I>ou1d TIYough 3 1,798 1,584 ElF .ocIv.h, TlYOlJgh 3.5 Cll .ocIveh, TIYough CMA.Q Irtwoyemenlllltitt Righi I NJA NlA 115 357 vic =1.06 Righi 0.5 NlA NlA vic -0.93 RI\tII Iorwitleul...
wilrilg. l.n 1 150 46 347 419 Left 2 150 46 l.n 2 150 46 􀁾􀀱􀁜􀁃􀁉􀀮􀀹􀁬􀀢􀀧􀁐􀁨􀁲􀀢􀀢􀀬􀁃􀁬􀁉􀁰􀀢 EaslbO<Jnd TlYough 1 55 44 FoIl PJ/jP.... TlYough 2 Foil AMPei! TlYough , Doll AMP....
Iatr k'c'eases wilh he pro-Ri\t11 1 NlA NlA 840 m LOSE, Righi 1 300 91 lOSF, RI\tI 2 100 30 lOS 0, 􀁾......_.Iho L.ft 1 fO 15 17 71 Delay =fO.O L.ft 1 fO 15 0.1.,..60.5 left , 100 30
Del.,. =26.6 !MJ1011 p<d11l11l, per. Kell.. W••lboond TlYOlJgh 05 6 66 00 .ocIveh, TlYOlJgh 0.5 Eo\) .ocIveh, TlYOlJgh 0.5 00 6ocIveh, ......􀁉􀁯􀁦􀁴􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀢 Springs Riglil 05
NlA NlA 6 fO vic =1.01 Rig,1 0.5 NlA NlA v!c-1.11 RI\t11 0.5 NlA NlA vic-0.96 "" phos, fat ... tva.q, left 1 210 64 129 451 L.ft 2 200 61 left 2 200 61 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁆 .. ",,,,,. Addison
I NorlhbotJoo TlYoug, 3 6S3 􀁾􀀰􀀴􀀶 Doll PM P.ak TIYOlJgh 3 OIC PM P.i! TlYOlJgh 3 CIC PMPe'" 􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁟􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀬 ... COW(QlItCil Righi 1 fO 15 29 22 LOSO, Righi 1 200 61 lOSe, Ri\tl 1
200 61 lose, 􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁲􀁬􀁓􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁡 lell I lfO 46 <II 28 Del.,. =25.9 L.ft 2 200 6t Del.,. -22.4 left 2 150 46 Del.,. =22.3 􀁦􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀼􀁴􀁯􀁴􀁾􀀮 "-y ngN S_OO ThrOlJgh 3 2.089 848 EIC
,ocIveh, TIYough 3 FIC toclveh, TIYOlJgh 3 CIC 6ocIveh, onw.g ,olmosond ighl Ri\tll 1 50 15 160 402 vic =0.94 RI\tI 1 200 61 vic =0.82 Ri\t11 1 250 76 vlc=O.n 'ltJolVh rTlCHMnlItlI vobreI.
SCH.lfDGN3.RPT 27 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT Table 22 (Cont'd.) ,Summary of Intersection Geometries for Midway Road CMAQ Projects MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECIS Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements Final Recommended
Improvements Geometries SlDrag. Stor"ll. ' P.al<HCtJr Awroach Geometries Siorage Slorag. Apploacl1 Geometries Slorage Storage Approach #01 Long" Length Traf1icVoIlml' LOS InlersecUon
#01 Longlh Lengih LOS In[ersection #01 Longlh Lengih LOS InlarsecUon Inlorsectlon Approacl1 Movomonl L..... (Fo..) (M.I...,) />JI. PM (AMIPM) LOS Movement lOOBS (Fool) (M.I....) (AMlPM)
LOS Movement Lon.. (FOOl) (M.I....) (AMIPM) LOS Commonls Loft 1 75 2J 129 68 L.ft 1 150 46 L.ft Easlbourd Through 1 108 138 EKl AMPoak Through 1 EKl AMP.al< Through RighI 1 75 23 316
164 LOS 0, RighI 1 150 46 LOS 0, RighI L.ft 1 􀀱􀀲􀁾 36 nl 135 001>/=37,4 Loft 1 150 46 0.1"/=35.9 Loll Bollw,,/W.slbound Through 0,5 71 145 EIC socIveh, Through. 0,5 EIC socIvoh, Through
Drive RighI 0,5 􀀧􀁕􀁾􀀬 N1A 14 44 v!c:a1.00 RighI 0,5 NlA N1A vic =0,96 Righi l.ft 1 115 35 103 2&9 loft 1 150 46 L.II Addison 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁨􀁢􀁯􀁬􀁭􀁤 Through 3 1,249 1,970 Cill PM Poak
Through 3 CIB PM P.ak Through Righi 1 75 23 B3 283 LOSC, Righi I 150 46 lOSC, Righi Loft 1 100 30 27 sa 001>/" 18,2 L.II 1 100 30 0.1"/=18.2 L.II Soult>botl1d Throug> 3 2,465 1,495 OIC
socIvoh, Through 3 DIC ..""oh, Thtough RIghi 1 100 30 14 58 vfc =0,85 Righi 1 100 30 vfc =0,85 RighI Loft 0,5 NIA N1A 21 72 Loll 1 N1A N1A L.ft I 100 30 Easlbound 􀁔􀁴􀁲􀁯􀁵􀁾 0,5 92
169 OIF AM P.ak Through 0,5 D/F AMP••k Through 1 CIJ 􀁾 Righi 1 NlA NlA 39 72 LOSO, Righi 0.5 N1A NlA LOSC, Righi t N1A N1A lOSC, Loft 0.5 iliA NlA 110 149 0.1>/, 26.7 Loll I 125 36
0.1>/=20.3 L.ft 1 100 30 Ool>/·19.5 Lindberg Woslbou'1d ThrCtJgh 0.5 125 110 OIF socIvoh, Through 1 BIE """"'. Through t e.tl socIvoh, 0",. Righi 1 125 36 309 453 v/c·0.93 Righi t 125
36 vic =0,88 RighI t 150 46 vfc' 0.77 Loll 1 160 49 87 56 L.ft , 160 49 Loft 1 160 49 Add"", NoIlt>bound Through 2,5 1,019 1,980 OIF EM.fY!I Through 2.5 CIJ PM P.ak Through 2.5 CIC f'.!!fm
Righi 0.5 0.5 NlA NlA 138 191 LOSF, Right 0.5 N1A NlA LOSO. RighI 0.5 NlA N1A lOSC, Loll 1 200 61 479 431 0.1>/" 70,4 Loll 1 200 61 0.1>/= 35.7 l.ft 1 200 61 Ool>/·23,5 SCtJthbolmd Through
2,5 2,168 1,288 DIE socIvoh, Through 2,5 CIJ '."""', Through 2.5 CIC socIveh, Righi 0,5 N1A N1A 33 40 vIc. 1.12 RighI 0,5 NlA N1A vfc" 0.91 Righi 0.5 NlA NlA vlo =0.90 loll 1 NlA NlA
62 179 L.ft 0.5 NIA NlA l.ft Easlbound Ttrough 0.5 135 73 OKl AMP.a!< Thtough 1.5 CIC AMP.al< Through RIghI 0.5 N1A N1A 50 241 lOS 0, Righi I 100 30 lOSC. Right l.ft 1 NlA NlA 39 184
001>/" 26.6 left I 100 30 0.1>/= 23,5 Loft McEwen W.,lbound n'fll!9h 0.5 95 126 CKl '""""'. Through 1.5 C'C ,""".h, ThrCtJgh Road RIghi 0.5 NlA N1A 13 93 vic =0,91 Right 0.5 N1A N1A
vIc' 0,81 Righi l.ft 1 115 38 353 154 L.ft 1 200 61 L.ft Farmers Northbound Through 2.5 2,027 1,616 OKl PM P.oIe Through 2,5 C'C PM P.ak Through Branch Righi 0.5 N1A N1A n 44 LOS 0,
Righi 0.5 N1A N1A LOSC, Righi L.ft 1 100 30 134 2B 0,1>/= 28.5 loft 1 100 30 0.1>/=20,8 Loft Southbound Through 2.5 1.637 1.929 OKl socIvoh. Through 2.5 CIC seclvoh, Through Righi 0,5
􀁎􀁉􀀬􀁾 NlA 49 ' 24 vfc" 0,96 Righi 0,5 NIA N1A vfc =O.7B Righi 􀁓􀁃􀁈􀁍􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀮􀁒􀁐􀁔 28 C&B Job # 95-2211-010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT Table 22 (Cont'd.) Summary of Intersection Geometries for Midway Road CMAQ Projects MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS Existing Proposed CMAQ Improvements Final Recommended
Improvements Gearetr1cs Stor<l}e Storage Pea< Ib.r iWroa:h Gearetr1cs Stor<l}e Stor<l}e -Woa:h Gearetr1cs Stor"1B Stor<l}e Ij>proa:h #ol Leog1h Length TrallicVcirres LOS Interneetion
#ol Length Leog1h LOS Interneetion #ol Length Leog1h LOS Irtersection 􀁾􀁯􀁮 􀁾 IJa.eTert I.ales (Feet) 􀀨􀁾􀀩 PM FM (.'Mft1) LOS t.b.ure<t I.ales (Feet) (IkIErs) (.'Mft1) LOS M:Mrrert
I.ales (Feet) (IkUfs) (.'Mft1) LOS CmrrenIs 1 LEft 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 00 107 LEft 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 lEft 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 Eximl-1ilSOO Easl!xXKKl T!nlu;lh 0.5 161 26 Cf PMPe<t. Tlrough 0.5 ClC PM
Pea< T!nlu;lh 0.5 CIC PMPe<t. has ,. rn>.8lBts rumg c§l Riglt 1 80 24 240 77 LOSe. Righi 2 100 30 LOSe. Righi 1 100 30 LOSe. <:aDI18"JIy. Pha!ing lEft 05 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 16 63 !JeI<rI= 19.6
lEft 1 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 !JeI<rI= 17.1 l.a'l 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 Mr/=182 􀁾􀁗􀁅􀁉􀀧􀁥􀁡􀁳􀀮􀁵􀁮􀀺􀁤 fa F\"otoo \Ikstbomd T!nlu;lh 1 21 171 CIC sedwh, TIrough 0.5 DE sedwh, Tlrough 0.5 CIC sedwh, ..
0IEmU.es. lie FmI [)i\t Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 43 30l vic =0.77 Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.77 Riglt 1 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.75 RimTmnIaIi<n slIMs too lEft 1 85 26 43 126 lEft 1 lSI 46 l.a'l
1 175 53 resJlsd nmlrilg Ite MdiSM/IbthlxJund T!nlu;lh 2.5 1,299 2,105 00 PMPe<t. Tlrough 2.5 CIC .EMEl1;! Tlrough 2.5 CIC .!'Mfl:;! 􀁾􀁬􀁕􀀱􀁴􀁡􀀧􀁤􀁟FiITT&S Right 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 14
2J LOS 0, Righi 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 LOS 0, Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 LOSC, 􀁾􀁜􀁜􀁉􀁬􀁬􀁗􀀢􀁤􀀱􀁲􀁏􀀡􀁬􀁊􀀧􀁬􀀾 Ihrdl LEft 1 100 30 2n 86 !JeI<rI=31.8 lEft 1 200 61 Oelaf =29.8 lEft 1 250 76 Mr/=22.3
􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁭􀁧􀁥 Soutttoo1d T!nlu;lh 2.5 2,272 1,692 00 secl\<!h, T!nlu;lh 2.5 00 sedwh, Tlrough 2.5 CIC secl\<!h, 􀁾&Oglaliringat---, Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 66 93 vic =1.01 Riglt
0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.00 Righi 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.75 􀁾􀁣􀁉􀁜􀁡􀀧􀁩􀁧􀁳 r'\ lEft 1 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 93 100 LEft 1 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 LEft 1 lSI 46 1 Eastbourd T!nlu;lh 0.5 :vl.l 174 FIF 􀁾 Tlrough
1 F.iI) 􀁎􀀮􀁾􀁐􀁥􀀼􀁴􀀮 Tlrough 1.5 00 NJPe<t. Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 106 26 LOSE, Riglt 1 100 30 LOS 0, Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 LOS 0, LEft 1 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 179 194 Oefay= 58.5 LEft 1 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁
!JeI<rI=37.7 LEft 1 250 76 􀁾􀀽􀀲􀀸􀀮􀀸 8etreafeI I'oI!sIlxllrod T!nlu;lh 0.5 83 399 FIF serAeh, Tlrough 1 Fill sedwh, Tlrough 1.5 00 serAeh, S<jo<m Righi 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 46 181 vic =1.18
Riglt 1 100 30 vic =0.99 Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.91 LEft 1 100 30 22 192 LBI 1 100 30 lEft 1 lSI 46 Can:Ion 􀁾􀁢􀁯􀁯􀁬􀁘􀁬 T!nlu;lh 2.5 445 2,096 00 .EMEl1;! Tlrough 3 00 PM Pea<
Tlrough 3 00 .!M.E8 Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 153 144 LOSE, Righi 1 100 30 LOS 0, Righl 1 225 69 LOS 0, LEft 1 100 30 299 143 !JeI<rI=463 LEft 1 100 30 !JeI<rI=27.3 lEft I 300 91 Mr/=25.9
SouttboulXl TJrou:lh 2.5 2,504 551 EiIl sedwh, Tlrough 2.5 ()C sedwh, Tlrough 2.5 OC sedwh, Righi 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 20 96 vic =1.05 Righi 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.91 Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vlc=o.lll
LEft 0.25 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 17 lEft 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 LEft r-mi'Jlm,lrnris Easl!xXKKl TJrou:lh 0.5 FIF M\Pe<t. Tlrough 0.5 00 PMPe<t. t. Tlrough fm..dea:li'>:l.Og\I. Riglt 0.25 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 18 1(8
LOSF, Riglt 1 200 61 LOS 1\ Right lIeW......mnisanarlti LEft 0.25 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 6 32 !JeI<rI> 15 LEft 1 100 30 Oefay= 3.7 LEft _11j"",.",..0'1 &jing1llw I'oI!sIlxllrod T!nlu;lh 0.5 FIF ITiIlWl,
Tlrough 0.5 CIC sedwh, Tlrough Ite B<¥"90'1 a'd lkrley [)xjey Right 0.25 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 4 20 vic> 1.0 Righl 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.78 Righl owoatso LEft 1 100 30 132 63 LEft 1 lSI 46 lEft MdSM/􀁾􀁢􀁯􀁯􀁲􀁤
T!nlu;lh 2.5 949 2,626 FIF .EMEl1;! T1rough 2.5 NB PMPe<t. TJrough r Carelkm Righl 05 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 35 7 LOSF. Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 LOSe, Riglt lEft 1 100 30 5 7 .!JeI<rI> 15 lEft 1 100 30
Oefay= 11.6 lEft SoulttJMd T!nlu;lh 2.5 3,042 1,278 FIF ITirl\th, T1rough 2.5 NB secI\eh, T!nlu;lh Right 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 39 10 vic> 1.0 Riglt 0.5 􀁾􀁁 􀁾􀁁 vic =0.69 Righi ..,,,/<./) SCH.\IDSGN.RPT
29 C&B Job # 95·2211.010
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT Table 23 Breakdown of Cost Estimate and Project Budget MIDWAY ROAD CMAQ PROJECTS 9.77% Off *2.17% Off 2.40% 8.52% Off 5.5% Off Amount Schematic 0.0% On 0.0% On
County 0.0% On 0.0% On Available for Constr. TxDOT Constr. Budget TxDOT Admin. TXDOT TxDOT Constr.' Cost Constr.l Amount Amount PS&E ROW Constr. TIP Constr. ROW Admin. Estimate Admin.
+,. Trinity Mills at $ 750,000 $ 111,787 $ 248,184 $ 12,129 $ 18,000 $ · $ · $ 359,900 $ 558,937 $ 54,608 $ (253,645) Midway Spring Valley at $ 1,750,000 $ 88,679 $ 156,060 $ 9,622 $
42,000 $ · $ · $ 1,453,640 $ 443,394 $ 43,320 $ 966,926 Midway Keller Springs at $ 530,000 $ 58,573 $ 156,060 $ 6,355 $ 12,720 $ · $ · $ 296,292 $ 292,865 $ 28,613 $ (25,186) Midway
Beltway at $ 55,000 $ 5,957 $ 12,204 $ 646 $ 1,320 $ · $ · $ 34,873 $ 29,785 $ 2,910 $ 2,178 Midway Lindberg at $ 105,000 $ 11,716 $ 13,932 $ 1,271 $ 2,520 $ $ · $ 75,560 $ 58,582 $
5,723 $ 11,255 Midway McEwen at $ 115,000 $ 18,863 $ 27,000 $ 2,047 $ 2,760 $ $ $ 64,330 $ 94,316 $ 9,215 $ $ (39,201) Midway -Proton at $ 115,000 $ 20,678 $ 33,372 $ 2,244 $ 2,760 $
$ $ 55,946 $ 103,391 $ 10,101 $ (57,546) Midway · · Belmeade/Sojoum $ 220,000 $ 33,578 $ 68,256 $ 3,643 $ 5,280 $ · $ -$ 109,243 $ 167,888 $ 16,403 $ (75,047) at Midway Boyington/Dooley
$ 155,000 $ 11,096 $ 23,976 $ 1,204 $ 3,720 $ · $ · $ 115,004 $ 55,479 $ 5,420 $ 54,105 at Midway Totals: $ 3,795,000 $ 360,927 $ 739,044 $ 39,161 $ 91,080 $ $ $ 2,564,788 $ 1,804,637
$ 176,313 $ 583,838 Note: PS & E costs are 20% of the construction cost estimate. SCH.\/DSGN.RPT 30 C&B Job # 95·2211-010
• .Q APPEN"DIX for Schematic Design Report CMAQ Project No. 12 TxDOT Project No. CSJ-0918-45-344 October 27, 1997 \
APPENDIX A Count Data
AM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Spring Valley Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals
Right Thru Left Totals Totals 6:30 flN, 7 175 23 205 29 45 33 107 63 279 19 361 43 66 27 136 809 6:45 flN, 7 285 43 335 48 53 60 161 114 298 18 430 73 114 35 222 1,148 7:00 flN, 20 362
41 423 48 70 84 202 92 249 29 370 51 132 41 224 1,219 7:15 flN, 28 492 60 580 66 73 81 220 68 308 17 393 56 142 78 276 1,469 t:3(j,lliM 39 425 55 519 97 158 97 352 73 382 67 522 89 206
60 355 I>: 7:45AM 35 441 63 539 92 131 82 305 101 390 51 542 78 239 87 404 8:00AM 24 468 76 568 76 101 68 245 100 382 29 511 99 259 77 435 /: di1$!f:: 8:15AM 17 464 65 546 64 92 72 228
87 314 27 428 76 233 63 372 ,:. jj$74':' Peak Totals 115 1,798 259 2,172 329 482 319 1,130 361 1,468 174 2,003 342 937 287 1,566 6,871 T= 3.2% Ped = 4 T= 3.6% Ped = 4 T= 7.3% Ped= 3
T= 2.0% Ped= 7 AverageT= 4.2% PM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Spring Valley Period Southbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals
Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 4:30PM 83 421 81 585 64 248 104 416 70 377 72 519 33 132 32 197 1,717 4:45PM 80 342 69 491 76 237 89 402 88
447 113 648 45 134 43 222 1,763 $ick>eM 86 433 81 600 55 349 114 518 74 388 92 554 53 162 45 260 ';i:I,: 􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀤􀀢􀁥􀁍 108 428 95 631 66 288 83 437 80 410 104 594 44 170 47 261 􀀵􀀺􀁾􀁐􀁍
98 381 91 570 62 315 80 457 87 376 110 573 32 154 35 221 􀀵􀁪􀁾􀀬􀁩􀀿􀁍 65 342 83 490 64 288 92 444 70 472 112 654 31 139 38 208 􀁾 6:00PM 37 304 57 398 63 239 79 381 60 437 125 622
35 146 60 241 1,642 6:15PM 46 221 52 319 65 195 58 318 72 368 96 536 31 130 42 203 1,376 Peak Totals 357 1,584 350 2,291 247 1,240 369 1,856 311 1,646 418 2,375 160 625 165 950 7,472
T= Ped= 2.1% 3 T= Ped= 1.5% 3 A-2 T= Ped= 3.9% o T= Ped= 2.2% 11 AverageT= 2.5%
AM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Keller Springs Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left
Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 6:30AM 21 265 1 287 0 1 0 1 2 77 18 97 75 3 24 102 487 6:45AM 25 311 3 339 0 0 1 1 4 113 16 133 153 8 46 207 680 7:00AM 29 428 12 469 2 1 2 5 12
117 23 152 151 11 60 222 848 7:15AM 34 586 5 625 1 0 0 1 10 130 25 165 179 18 41 238 1,029 7:30AM 42 605 4 651 2 3 4 9 18 146 33 197 234 13 81 328 :: 7:45AM 39 523 4 566 1 0 3 4 2 182
36 220 219 17 98 334 8:00AM 28 416 5 449 1 .2 4 7 3 149 29 181 200 15 78 293 􀀺􀀼􀁑􀁾 $ :8:15AM 51 545 7 603 2 1 6 9 6 176 31 213 187 10 90 287 ;::;,;1.1J2 Peak Totals 160 2,089 20 2,269
6 6 17 29 29 653 129 811 840 55 347 1,242 4,351 T= Ped= 1.4% o T= Ped= 6.9% o T= Ped= 5.8% o T= Ped= 0.9% o AverageT= 2.1% PM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Keller Springs Period Southbound
Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 4:30 PM 69 167 6 242 5 10 13 28
8 340 115 463 41 2 76 119 852 􀀮􀁩􀁾􀁊􀀺􀀧􀁍 74 183 5 262 11 15 17 43 5 548 137 690 52 7 59 118 1);:'1: 􀁾􀀺􀁷􀁦􀁦􀁬􀁍 107 235 7 349 12 21 21 54 8 545 111 664 67 16 116 199 I:􀀻􀀧􀁕􀁩􀀺􀀡􀁾􀀡􀀻􀁾􀀨􀀻
􀁦􀀿􀀺 J, ;i;:; .' ;." i, ,.,; .. ,' 􀁾 >, 􀁾􀀺􀁴􀀵􀁐􀁍 121 229 11 361 13 20 20 53 6 480 103 589 59 8 122 189 􀀡􀀬􀁩􀀺􀀺􀁮􀀡􀀱􀀧􀀡􀁾􀀺􀀽 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀧􀁐􀁍 100 201 5 306 14 10 13 37 3 473
100 576 50 13 122 185 5:45 PM 104 165 5 274 5 7 9 21 8 506 120 634 58 9 94 161 1,090 6:00 PM 86 202 6 294 4 5 14 23 2 547 130 679 57 4 94 155 1,151 6:15PM 59 156 2 217 5 2 2 9 5 443
122 570 60 1 50 111 907 Peak Totals 402 848 28 1,278 50 66 71 187 22 2,046 451 2,519 228 44 419 691 4,675 T= 2.5% Ped= 0 T= 3.2% Ped = 0 A-3 T= 1.3% Ped = 0 T= 1.3% Ped= 0 AverageT=
1.7%
AM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Beltway Road Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals
Right Thru Left Totals Totals 6:30AM 0 248 2 250 2 4 2 8 10 195 8 213 19 6 4 29 500 6:45AM 4 428 5 437 1 1 12 14 7 300 10 317 30 12 12 54 822 7:00AM 5 513 4 522 0 4 18 22 19 209 15 243
40 10 7 57 844 7:15AM 6 565 4 575 1 2 36 39 14 221 13 248 50 11 18 79 941 7:30AM 3 562 1 566 3 24 103 130 13 306 12 331 68 18 30 116 11143: , 7:45AM 3 593 3 599 3 30 113 146 14 335 33
382 94 39 42 175 ';Hj30ii a:ooAlv1 3 662 11 676 4 5 65 74 25 314 23 362 81 21 36 138 "1.2$0.' 8:15AM 5 648 12 665 4 12 49 65 31 294 35 360 73 30 21 124 􀀬􀀢􀀻􀀾􀀮􀀱􀁾􀀲􀁈􀀢􀀻 Peak Totals
14 2,465 27 2,506 14 71 330 415 83 1,249 103 1,435 316 108 129 553 4,909 T= Ped= 2.8% 3 T= Ped= 0.7% 5 T= Ped= 5.4% 1 T= Ped= 1.3% 3 AverageT = 3.2% PM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road
@Beltway Road Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals
4:30 PM 10 404 17 431 6 14 36 56 73 595 58 726 30 18 20 68 1,281 4:45PM 9 243 9 261 6 15 17 38 37 372 43 452 21 16 12 49 800 j$itlQ'eM 12 481 14 507 13 41 33 87 114 315 89 518 53 46
18 117 􀁩􀁧􀀺􀀱􀁾􀁩􀁐􀁍 13 346 18 377 11 41 39 91 47 513 48 608 31 30 17 78 􀁉􀀺􀁾􀀭 􀀵􀀺􀁾􀁬􀀿􀁍 15 375 15 405 10 37 38 85 71 594 61 726 45 31 16 92 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾..i?M 18 293 21 332 10 26
25 61 51 548 71 670 35 31 17 83 iii" 􀀧􀀱􀁾􀀮􀀧􀁾􀀲􀁕􀁩􀁈 6:00PM 12 289 15 316 7 10 19 36 45 542 54 641 22 29 30 81 1,074 6:15PM 12 280 6 298 4 18 19 41 44 525 61 630 18 18 14 50 1,019
Peak Totals 58 1,495 68 1,621 44 145 135 324 283 1,970 269 2,522 164 138 68 370 4,837 T= 2.7% Ped= 4 T= 1.2% Ped= 2 A-4 T= 2.2% Ped= 6 T= 0.3% Ped = 1 AverageT= 2.2%
AM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Lindberg Drive Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left
Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 6:30AM 9 270 37 316 24 6 6 36 11 204 18 233 2 0 1 3 588 6:45AM 10 333 59 402 47 14 14 75 28 225 30 283 4 4 2 10 770 7:00AM 13 515 77 605 41 12 19
72 17 180 19 216 4 5 4 13 906 7:'S,AM 7 579 111 697 56 29 24 109 29 221 16 266 8 8 2 18 ',,':;",);QElO,U';" .1:30 AM 3 601 113 717 81 28 28 137 22 249 18 289 10 24 8 42 ,.',::;:1;1$$:,"
!:4$AM 7 493 129 629 92 34 30 156 44 256 33 333 7 39 8 54 1;;':;1;:112,,( 8:00AM 16 495 126 637 80 34 28 142 43 293 20 356 14 21 3 38 {>i,ita ,:,,' B:15AM 14 423 141 578 80 30 30 140
29 262 27 318 10 26 7 43 1,079 Peak Totals 33 2,168 479 2,680 309 125 110 544 138 1,019 87 1,244 39 92 21 152 4,620 T= 1.9% Peel = 0 T= 4.2% Peel = 0 T= 3.8% Peel = 0 T= 11.2% Peel =
0 AverageT= 3.0% PM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Lindberg Drive Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals
Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 4:30PM 10 285 88 383 93 24 25 142 20 407 11 438 17 22 14 53 1,016 4:45PM 12 302 73 387 96 37 19 152 28 467 13 508 15 34 13 62 1,109
5:00PM 14 333 88 435 105 34 34 173 34 488 12 534 23 42 15 80 .L 1.􀁾􀀺􀀢 . 5:15PM 8 299 104 411 99 25 34 158 49 546 18 613 25 42 13 80 '. 5:30PM 12 335 127 474 146 29 41 216 59 421 11
491 9 53 28 90 5:45PM 6 321 112 439 103 22 40 165 49 525 15 589 15 32 16 63 6:00PM 1 294 126 421 121 33 35 189 36 459 8 503 28 36 14 78 1,191 6:15 PM 5 242 76 323 74 13 33 120 55 469
13 537 11 15 7 33 1,013 Peak Totals 40 1,288 431 1,759 453 110 149 712 191 1,980 56 2,227 72 169 72 313 5,011 T= 2.8% Peel = 1 T= Peel = 2.1% o A-5 T= Peel = 1.9% 1 T= Peel = 1.6% o
AverageT= 2.2%
AM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Proton Drive Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals
Right Thru Left Totals Totals 6:30AM 13 220 16 249 3 1 1 5 0 238 5 243 21 4 6 31 5286:45AM 8 285 26 319 2 0 0 2 0 301 11 312 31 6 10 47 680 7:00AM 12 421 36 469 8 3 0 11 0 229 6 235 40 15 11 66 781 7:15AM 25 583 57 665 3 1 3 7 3 281 10 294 61 28 12 101 1:". ;/7:30AM
17 580 67 664 12 10 5 27 4 312 15 331 73 35 28 136 :<:.;1.'158': ;' 7:45AM 15 591 87 693 11 9 5 25 6 344 10 360 54 62 21 137 > 8:00AM 9 518 61 588 17 1 3 21 1 362 8 371 52 36 29 117
·')l,Q97 ...·.·. 8:15AM 14 515 66 595 11 1 0 12 4 343 3 350 46 27 16 89 1,046 Peak Totals 66 2,272 272 2,610 43 21 16 80 14 1,299 43 1,356 240 161 90 491 4,537 T= Ped = 2.0% o T= Ped=
1.3% 2 T= Ped= 3.2% 2 T= Ped= 1.0% 1 AverageT = 2.2% PM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Proton Drive Period Southbound Westbound . Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru
Left Totals Right Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totats 4:30PM 20 373 24 417 35 13 7 55 15 508 35 558 15 4 34 53 1,083 􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀱􀀵􀁒􀁍 17 333 18
368 83 35 17 135 7 567 24 598 17 6 25 48 􀀻􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀺􀁆􀀧􀁍􀀺 30 487 21 538 81 38 13 132 5 565 42 612 21 10 36 67 $i15 PM 27 408 27 462 89 57 12 158 5 437 25 467 16 3 22 41 􀂷􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀳􀁪􀁪􀁂􀁍
19 464 20 503 55 41 21 117 6 536 35 577 23 7 24 54 5:45PM 22 387 25 434 39 34 10 83 5 466 31 502 15 3 28 46 1,065 6:00PM 13 305 14 332 34 24 4 62 5 487 44 536 13 3 29 45 975 6:15PM 15
298 12 325 29 4 5 38 3 415 35 453 10 0 12 22 838 Peak Totals 93 1,692 86 1,871 308 171 63 542 23 2,105 126 2,254 77 26 107 210 4,877 T= 2.2% Ped = 2 T= Ped= 0.6% 2 A-7 T= Ped = 1.9%
1 T= Ped= 1.4% 3 AverageT= 1.8%
AM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road @Boyington I Dooley Period Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left
Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 6:30 NIl 3 312 3 318 a a a a 6 89 27 122 3 a a 3 443 6:45 NIl 11 504 2 517 a a 1 1 5 154 28 187 1 a a 1 706 7:00 NIl 5 512 0 517 1 a a 1 5 157 33
195 4 a 0 4 717 7:1$Arv1 9 794 1 804 a 0 0 a 12 206 32 250 4 a 0 4 •.·••. 1.058.:·>·.· 7:30AM 6 814 1 821 1 0 1 2 5 243 24 272 5 0 a 5 • 11M'······ 7t45·N:J, 10 720 3 733 1 0 4 5 10
266 39 315 6 a a 6 '>1,059" 8:60AM 14 714 a 728 2 a 1 3 8 234 37 279 3 a a 3 ;··id.01:t'> 8:15 NIl 9 625 a 634 2 a 3 5 5 296 48 349 12 a 2 14 1.002 Peak Totals 39 3,042 5 3,086 4 a 6
10 35 949 132 1,116 18 a a 18 4,230 T= 1.0% Ped = 0 T= 0.0% Ped = 0 T= 4.1% Ped = 0 T= 11.1% Ped = 0 AverageT= 1.9% PM Peak Hour Count for Midway Road@Boyington I Dooley Period Southbound
Westbound Northbound Eastbound Intersection Begins Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Right Thru Left Totals Totals 4:30 PM 2 273 0 275 3 a 10 13 6
547 12 565 25 0 6 31 884 4:45PM 7 276 3 286 4 0 5 9 3 642 16 661 36 0 5 41 997 5:00PM 4 373 2 379 7 0 10 17 4 683 27 714 38 a 6 44 5:1SPM 2 309 4 315 7 0 10 17 3 601 12 616 18 a 6 24
." ,.... 􀀤􀀺􀁾􀁐􀁍 2 318 1 321 3 0 5 8 0 645 13 658 27 0 1 28 jjs , : :" -'::: : 􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀺 .. ,: 5:45'RM 2 278 0 280 3 a ·7 10 a 697 11 708 25 a 4 29 􀁾 6:00PM 2 245 a 247 8 a 8 16 2
601 18 621 22 a 2 24 908 6:15 PM 3 224 0 227 2 a 7 9 1 570 4 575 15 a 3 18 829 Peak Totals 10 1,278 7 1,295 20 0 32 52 7 2,626 63 2,696 108 0 17 125 4,168 T= 2.7% Ped= 0 T= 1.9% Ped
= 0 A-9 T= 1.2% Ped= 0 T= 2.4% Ped= a AverageT= 1.7%
APPENDIX B Intersection Analyses
L 329 ......-. 482 r-319 IIIII I I I I II II JI 1.1 .. 1 I HCM SunMary Results for Case: SPULEXAM Spring UallylMidway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp --App Delay
L Delay L Lane X (secl 0 (secl 0 Grp vIs VIc veh) 􀁾 vehJ 􀁾 ED Lper *8.29 56.3 E Lpro 8.15 a.87M 53.8 E TH 8.29 1.88 56.9 E •2 1 L 4-12l 2 2 4j It 11'1' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I --5 287 -J' 937342 --.. 5 I .....1'.1 58.1 E 48.B E 43.4 E 1 WB Lper 8.29 Lpro *8.18 B.991 79.3 F TH 8.18 B.63 35.9 D NB Lper *8.34 Lpro 8.88 0.971 92.8 F T 8.33 B.99 51.8 E H 8.24
B.48 􀀱􀀹􀀮􀁾 C SD Lper 8.8B Lpro *8.15 B.921 65.4 F T 8.37 0.96 41.4 E H 8.84 B.87 12.2 B Int. 8.96 1.82 49.2 E IL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: SPVLEXAM Existing Conditions Spring Vally/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 4 Outbound Street 3
Including Pockets IJD NO SD 4 5 5 3 3 3_-----1 IIII I I I I III IIII 1.1 􀁾 I 􀁾 I L 329 482 .-319 --"'=""= •21 i r 174 tGI 14GB ---􀀱􀀲􀁬􀀲􀀲􀀴􀁾 --5 2 1 287.J 937342-"1 Jll.. 5 I -1..
1 --Lane Lengths-Full L Pkt R Pkt 1008 288 1008 115 1008 1GB 118 1108 208 -Pkt Lanes-Left Hight 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2) ED 1m 1m SB 3lNeed to Reyise Channelization? N 4) Lane Widths (Feet)
Median 2 3 4 5 G EB 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 IJB 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 NB 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 SB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETSIM Results for Case: SPVLEXAM Existing Conditions Spring VallY/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.8ft IIII I I I I I II II JI I .1 􀁾 I I L 329 492 .-319 ----Approach Left Thru Right
1 JJI.. ED X UD 5 2 1 5 I --1.. 1 SB X ,.r 23 122 146B 4 ... "'=-= I21 2 JJI. 3 50 ·:lr2 1 12 l 2 2 􀁾 2B7..J 937342-"SiMulation results indicate that the peak period traff ic ",ovefllents
identified by Xare oversaturated and cannot be serviced
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁎􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: SPVLEXA" Existing Conditions Spring VallylMidway Doad AM Peal< Vers ion 3.86 Queues Spillback in Per Lane AYg Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed ('l. of Peak
App Group (veh) (nph) Period) Ell -L-BI 13 --s:B 8.9 Ii 151 28 6.9 8.8 All 6.& 8.9 IIII I I I I I II IIII 1.'''1.I L 329 of--482 .. 319 --• --•=-= 2 1 146B --5 287-J 937342 ---.. 5 I
-.1.. 1 1 JjL 2 Jj:. 3 4 􀁾 2 1 sa":lr2 1 12 l 2 2 􀁾 45.7 8.8 45.7 33.9 8.7 8.8 33.9 62.7 8.8 8.8 62.7 1.4 8.4 7.4 8.8 4.9 6.1 4.7 8.9 6.3 22.4 5.9 5.8 161 24 91 16 131 17 271 47 161
23 251 36 2B/34 11 2 WB LTR All I'm LTRAll SB LTHAll Intersect.
NETSIM Results for Case: SPULEXAM Spring VallY/Midway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8& NETsrM Queue statistics -Kiiverage -lEMax. *Max. Pet. Pet. or Pet. Of Cyc las Anination
Max. Q Queue or rillle Cycles Where Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q Yith 􀁃􀁡􀁮􀁾 t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehs)
ALane Overflow Of Hon-Turners Queue EB L 8 13 0.9 58.0 83.3 6:59 􀁔􀁾 15 28 0.8 12:44 UB L 16 24 45.7 66.7 16.7 14:37 􀁔􀁾 9 16 0.8 13:37 NB L 13 17 33.9 58.8 83.3 6:82 T 'Zl 47 0.7
12:39 R 16 23 0.8 33.3 180.0 10:84 SB L 25 36 62.7 &6.7 0.0 13:27 T 2B 34 B.8 14:14 R 1 2 0.8 1:82 *These 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥 􀁾􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁵􀁲􀁥􀁳 are also shown on 􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁹 statistics
screen
NETSIM Results for Case: SPULEXAN Existing Conditions Spring Ually/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM EnyironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuNption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 18.9 8.5 8.8 7.5 3.a B.e WB 6.8 8.3 B.B 9.6 &.7 B.B NB 15.6 1.7 B.B 5.9 3.5 B.B SB 16.4 1.1 B.8 6.7 3.8 B.B All 48.9 3.6 B.8
7.8 3.6 B.B Auto Pollutant ENissions RTOR (GraMS/nile-Hour) ManeuYers ---HC-------eo--------HOX----Conpleted ED 589.3 15114.8 1762.3 38 WB 383.8 5694.8 698.B 36 HE 793.2 16238.2 2126.8
25 SB 797.9 28528.2 2448.8 9 All 625.4 14543.4 1775.8 Average speed on previous page Nay be overstated since it was necessary to conbine yellow and all-red interyals
L 329 of-482 '--:l.-.---_ 319 Lane HeM 􀁓􀁕􀁾􀁍􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results For Case: SPUVAM2 Spring UallY/Midway Hoad Exist. Traffic WI + Midway OL AM Peak Version 3.8h -Lane Grp --App -I 1798 Delay
L Delay L 􀁾 I 􀀱􀁾􀀵 􀀵􀁾 I X (seCI 0 (secl 0 􀁾 4 "I I I vIs vIC wh) 􀁾 veh) 􀁾 'lit 'tIl' 8.89 8.72 34.5 D 20.3 D ' I I I I 8.28 0.82 29.8 D 8.28 8.53 19.4 C Grp EB LTR --WB L iEfJ.11
8.02 48.8 D 27.3 D T 8.11 8.43 24.1 C ------------R *8.21 8.53 18.6 C NBL 8.86 8.64 36.6 D 26.6 D 287..J' 􀁾 :r: r: 1: T ilfI.33 0.9Z za.1i D 937-I I I I , 1 t i J I I , R 8.23 8.45
11.7 B 342 --.. I I I 174 361 I I , 14GB SB L iEfJ.88 8.57 31.4 D 28.7 C 1 L􀁾􀁟2 􀁊􀁊􀁌􀁾􀀭 3 JJ 4---.1 TR 8.38 8.73 19.4 C lB l 34 lr3 2 ,.r 2 3 2 13 I 2 1 5 --L lnt. 8.72 8.82 25.3
D --, 23 3 2
L. 329 4-482 ...........,r􀁾---_ 319 3 2 -L 207 -" 931-342 .. --, Z3 Including Pockets WB NB 8B 666 3 3 4 Input Data for Case: SPUYAM2 Exist. Traffic WI + l1idway OL Intersection Geonetry
l)NuMber of Lanes EB Approach Street 6 Outbound Street 3 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Hight Full L Pkt RPkt ED 2 1 1088 158 208 UB 2 1 1088 258 258 MB 2 8 1088 225 8B 2 8 1188
225 􀁾􀀺􀁩􀀺􀁴􀀺􀁬􀀺 I I I I lit r I I I I 174 361 I I I 4) Lane Widths (Feet) I I I 1468 l1edian 2 3 4 5 I) 1 L􀁾_2 J1L 􀁾_3 Jl 􀁾 ED 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 1 r-UB 12.8 12.8
12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 _W_-:_l_2--t-_3__2_r-3_4_r_3_2-+--,-1_3_:·_2_1.. NB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 5 SB 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 3)Need to Reyise Channelization1 N
NETSIM SUlllnary For Case: SPIJYAM2 Spring Vally/Midway Road Exist. Traffic wI + Midway 8L AM Peak Version 3.8& Queues Spi lIback in I 1198 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀀱􀁾􀀵􀁾 I L 329
Lane Avg/Max Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak I I I I I oIQ--482 App Group (Yeh) (nph) Period) I! I!I!I􀁾􀁉 􀁾 I I I I I 319 EB -L-51 7 2.8 1:1.8 T 71 HI 11.4 8.8 ------R 71 9 4.4 8.8 ------All 9.2
8.8 IJB L 51 8 3.4 8.8 T 41 Il 15.5 8.8 ------------R 41 Ii 9.2 8.8 All 11.8 8.8 287 -!' NB L 31 5 3.2 8.8 􀁾 :r: t:1: 937 ----.. I I I I I 1 t i T 181 14 12.8 8.8 I I I I R 51 9 19.8
8.8 342.. I I I 174 3111 All 12.8 8.8 I I I 1468 SB L 51 7 3.1 8.8 1 l 􀁾􀁟2 J!l 􀁾􀁟3 J! 4---1 TR 81 12 14.8 8.8 􀀱􀁾 l lr3 2 I ..r-All 12.6 2 3 2 34 13 I 2 1 8.8 5 L --. -Intersect.
11.1l -, 23 3 2
NETSIM Hesults ror Case: SPVVAM2 Spring VallytMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic WI + Midway aL AM Peal< Version 3.81) NETSIM Queue statistics *fIverage *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pct. Of Cyeles
Anilllation "ax. Q Queue or Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs)
(yehs) ALane Overflow Of Hon-Turners Queue EB L 5 7 8.8 8.8 8.8 3:12 T 1 IB 8.8 8:18 n 1 9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8:12 1m L 5 a 8.8 B.8 8.8 18:18 T 4 6 8.8 5:12 n 4 6 0.8 B.0 0.0 11 :56 NB L 3
5 8.8 8.8 11.1 5:5B T 18 14 8.8 1:16 H 5 9 8.8 11:84 SB L 5 7 8.8 8.8 8.8 8:49 TR B 12 0.8 4:04 *These perfornance neasures are also shown on 􀁳􀁵􀁮􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: SPUYAMZ Exist. Traffic wI + Midway BL Spring Ually/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons---------------------
--Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 0.9 8.4 8.8 9.2 4.2 B.8 UB 4.3 8.3 8.8 13.6 7.2 B.8 NB 7.2 8.9 8.8 13.5 6.9 B.8 SB 18.3 8.B 8.8 11.8 4.7 8.8 All 38.8
2.4 8.8 11.4 5.8 8.8 RTOR Maneuvers CoMpleted 54 42 328 Auto Pollutant EMissions (GraMS/Mile-Hour) ----CO--------HOX----14185.1 1687.8 5155.9 569.8 9282.8 1828.3 16582.3 1745.5 11389.2
1248.1 ----HC---498.8 225.5 3B4.1 529.4 412.4 EB UB NB SB AllAverage speed on previous page May he overstated since it was necessary to coMbine yellow and all-red intervals
1&46 4 1&5.J 6251&8 --.. 1 2 'I' 3 L .. 􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀫 111+ "111+ 1 512168112142 2225 5 Ii I • -􀁾 ---1 ..1 ==";--,+r-38 2 1 17 I 2 2 -App -1584 I Delay L 3J7 􀁐􀀵􀁾 I (seCI 0 I L veh) S I
247 ---I I I I 4-1248 98.7 F :!:J:JI .-369 ------------------------------%.6 F ------------------------------HeM Sunnary Results for Case: SPVLEXPM Spring UallylMidway Road Existing
Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp Delay L Lane X (secl 0 Grp VIS VIc veh) 􀁾 ED Lper B.18 Lpro *8.88 8.991121.1 F TR B.17 8.9B 84.8 F WB Lper B.88 Lpro 8.23 8.991 98.2 F TR *8.33
1.8B 98.1 F NB Lper 8.88 71.6 F Lpro *8.26 1.831 97.1 F T 8.36 1.83 73.1 F R 8.18 8.31 18.& C SD Lper 8.31 98.4 F Lpro 8.28 8.991 94.2 F T 􀁾􀀮􀀳􀀴 1.89 99.2 F R B.23 8.57 39.8 D Int.
1.82 1.8B 86.1 F IL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: SPULEXPM Existing Conditions Spring 􀁕􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀯􀁍􀁩􀁤􀁷􀁡􀁾 Road PM Peak version 3.8& Intersection GeoMetry l)NuNber of Lanes ED Approach Street 4 Outbound Street
3 Including Pockets UD N:B SD 455 3 3 􀀳􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 II II I I I I IIIIII1 I .1 􀁾 I 􀁾 I L 241 "-1248 .. 369 --3)Heed to Reyise Channelization? H ,.r-12 1 1646 4 i r 418 til ----1Ii5
-J 62516B ---.. 5 6 J 􀁾 • ---l ..1 􀁾 "'•== I+r-38 2 1 17 1 2 2 1 2 II' 3 L .. 􀁉􀁾􀁉 .. lll " "111+ l 512168112142 2225 --Lane Lengths-Full L Pkt HPkt 1888 208 1888 115 1888 168 118
11B8 288 -Pkt Lanes-Left Hight 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 8 Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 2) EB UB NB
SB 4) EB UB NB SB
NETSIM Results for Case: SPUEXPM3 Existing Conditions Spring UallylMidway Road PM Peak Uers ion 3.8& II,I I I I I III IIII 1.1 􀁾 I 􀁾 I L 241 948 .-369 --4 i r 418 til 1196 l&S..J &25168
---.. 1 2 'I' 3 .. 􀁉􀁾􀁉 .. UB X 3 11:"2 1 25 ":1:"2 I 18 1 2Z B NB X SiMulation results indicate that the peak period traffic 􀁾􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁎􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 identified by Xare oversaturated and
cannot be serviced Approach Left Thru Hight
NETSIM 􀀸􀁵􀁮􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: SPUEXPM3 Spring Ually/Midway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.Bo Queues Spi llhack in 1134 I Per Lane Ayg Worst Lane 􀁾􀁐􀀵􀁾 I Lane 􀁁􀁖􀁾􀀯􀁍􀁡􀁸
Speed (x or Peak I1 L-Z47 App Groop (veh) (nplJ ) Period) I I I I of--948 EB -L-41 9 􀁾 B.B I 􀁾 I 􀁾 IJI I I I I .-369 TH 61 9 9.2 8.8 --------------All 8.2 B.B ------------------liB
L 241 4B 1.1 48.2 ---------------TR 191 48 4.2 1.7 ---------------All 4.B 49.2 165...J' It f II rI rI 625-I I I I NB L 271 37 1.3 64.7 I I i r T 71 13 9.B B.B 1GB ---.. I I 418 ttl R
31 7 8.4 B.B I I I I 1196 All 7.9 64.7 3D L 131 17 1.6 28.2 1 2 ,.1T1+ 3 4 •--311:+2 1 -T 91 12 18.3 8.8 "111• 18 1 ,+r R 41 8 16.4 H.E! 25 II 2 t 22 B , 2 1 5 Ii I All 9.4 28.2 • •
􀁾􀀬􀀮􀁉 =-=*' 􀁾 ,.r Intersect. 6.B • 18 21 8 122
METSIM Results For Case: SPUEXPM3 Spring VallytMidway RDad Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8& METSIM Queue Statistics -tEilverage *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pet. Of Cycles Animation
tlax. Q Queue or Tillie Cycles Uhere Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter 􀁂􀁡􀀮􀁾 Showing Ln Per Lane Lane OverflDws Turn Bay Due TD Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehs)
A Lane Overflow Of HDn-Turners Queue ED L 4 9 0.8 8.0 8.8 8:87 TR 6 9 0.8 18:88 WB L 24 48 48.2 77.8 22.2 12:42 TR 19 48 1.7 14:22 NB L Z? 37 64.7 88.9 0.8 13:58 T 7 13 0.8 11:47 R 3
7 0.8 11.1 44.4 18:36 SB L 13 17 28.2 55.6 8.8 9:31 T 9 12 0.8 􀀱􀀱􀀺􀁾􀁕 R 4 8 8.8 9:24 *These 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥 neasures are also shDwn on sunnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: SPUEXPM3 Existing Conditions Spring UallytMidway Hoad PM Peak Version 3.8& HETSIM EnyironMental Statistics Fuel Consulllption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 5.'7 8.4 8.8 8.5 3.2 B.8 WB 14.3 8.3 8.8 5.1 3.1 8.8 NB 12.1 8.7 8.8 7.9 4.9 8.8 SB 11.3 8.& 8.8 9.4 3.8 8.8 All 43.3 2.8
8.8 7.4 3.7 8.8 Auto Pollutant Enissions (GranstMile-Hour) EB WB NB 8B All --HC---318.4 727.9 668.4 5GB.6 5&B.B ----co----9152.9 15690.3 18246.1 1&123.5 14835.4 -ttllX---1818.8 2817.8
2158.1 1793.6 174&.3 RTOD Maneuwrs Conpleted 15 14 31 55 Average speed on previous page 􀁾􀁹 be 􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁤 since it was necessary toconhine yellow and all-red interyals
411 i t r 418 311 1646 L 247 "-1248 􀁾 369 L.-.".----_ n:r: t:1: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 38 .6 D 165 --.J' 625 ---168 ---.. 27.8 D 1 L􀁾 _ 2 Jj 􀁾 li l 2 38 lr2 Z 9 8.12 0.6829.7
D 31.8 D *8.27 8.95 35.5 D 8.16 8.35 13.7 B Lane HeM SUnMary Results for Case: SPVYPM3 Spring Vally/Midway Road CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁄􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 + Midway 8L PM Peak Version 􀀳􀀮􀀸􀁾 -Lane
Grp --App -I 1584 Delay L Delay L 􀁾 I 􀀳􀁾􀀷 I X (secl 0 (secl 0 􀁾 I I I I I vIs VIC yah) 􀁾 veh) 􀁾 I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I L' *8.85 8.69 48.9 E 35.4 D I I I I I 8.14 0.04 37.3 D 8.89 8.27
19.8 C Grp EBLTn WBLTR NO L *8.14 8.89 48.3 E T *8.36 0.98 31.8 D R 8.22 8.38 9.5 B SB L 8.11 8.74 35.9 D TR 8.32 8.86 25.5 D Int. 8.82 8.93 38.4 D s--, 16 -L2 2
L 247 oQ--1Z48 2 2 -L 1&5...J 625 ----100 1&8 ---.. ----, 16 --Lane Lengths-Full L Pkt HPkt 1008 158 288 1808 258 ZS8 1888 225 1108 225 Including-Pockets YD ND SD G G G 334 -Pkt Lanes-Left
Hig-ht 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 Input Data for Case: SPVYPM3 CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 + Midway BL Intersection Geometry l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street G Outbound Street 3 2) ED WB
ND SD 3)Need to Reyise Channelization? N 􀁾 :j: j: 1: I I I I lit r I I I I 418 311 I I I 4) Lane Widths (Feet) I I I 1&46 Median 2 3 4 5 6 1 L􀁾􀁟2 Jj 􀁾 4 L ED 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8
12.8 12.8 1 r r= WD 12 .8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀁬􀁾􀁩---:l---=2--+..::..:3B:..........;,.:.....;r2=--=.21---=-9----:,:--=+2:........t-=1-=-1---.,;,...:+...::.2_ NB 12.8 12.0
12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 5 SD 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETSIM 􀁓􀁵􀁾􀁭􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: 8PVYPM3 Spring Ually/Midway Road CMAQ InproYenents + Midway BL PM Peak Version 3.86 Queues Spi llback in I lS84 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀀧􀀷􀁾 I L 247
Lane AvgIMax Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak I I I I I 􀁾􀀱􀀲􀀴􀁂 App Group (Yeh) (mph) Period) I! I II l'IliIllI .-369 EB -L-41 6 2.8 8.8 T 61 B 12.4 8.8 ------R 21 3 13.4 8.8 ------All 18.S 8.8
UB L bl 9 2.b 8.8 T 121 lB 8.1 8.8 ------------R 31 6 7.4 B.B All 7.3 8.8 165-J 􀁾 :r: t:1: NB L 81 9 2.S 8.8 i t i &25-I I I I I T 81 14 13.5 8.8 I I I I R 21 4 20.B 8.8 168 --.. I
I I 418 311 All 12.8 8.8 I I I 164£1 SB L bl 7 3.3 8.8 1 L􀁾􀁟2 Jj 3 4 ---1 -L TIl 111 15 13.5 8.8 Ii l 38 1r2 2 I ..r-1"1 12.1 B.B 2 9 12 11 12 All 5 L --Intersect. 18.3 -, 1£1 2 2
NETSIM Results For Case: SPUYPM3 Spring Vally/Midway Road CMAQ IAProveAents + Midway 8L PM Peak Version 3.8& NETSIM Queue Statistics iEilverage iEMax. *'lax. Pct. Pct. Of Pct. Of Cycles
Anilllation Max. Q Queue Of Tillie Cycles Where Turner FrMe Per 􀁃􀁾􀁣􀁬􀁥 Per That q Yith CanJ t Enter 􀁂􀁡􀁾 Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp
(vehs) (vehs) ALane Overflow Of "on-Turners Queue EB L 4 6 8.8 B.8 8.8 7:38 T G 8 8.8 7:57 R 2 3 8.8 B.8 8.8 5:26 WB L G 9 8.8 B.8 37.5 5:38 T 12 18 8.8 14:18 R 3 6 8.8 8.8 12.5 1:53
NB L 8 9 8.8 B.8 25.8 6:86 T 8 14 8.8 13:58 R 2 4 8.8 5:45 SB L 6 7 8.8 B.8 12.5 4:39 TR 11 15 0.8 1:16 *These perfornance neasures are also shown on sUlllnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: SPVVPM3 CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 + Midway 8L Spring Vally/Midway Road PM Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM Environ_ental Statistics Fue1 ConsuMption -------------Gallons---------
--------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 3.6 8.2 0.8 13.5 5.7 B.0 wn 11.6 8.5 8.8 8.8 3.6 B.8 HI 11.5 8.9 8.8 18.3 4.8 8.8 sn 18.7 8.4 8.8 12.3
5.8 8.8 All 37.5 2.8 8.8 18.4 4.8 8.8 RTOB Maneuvers COlJlpleted Zl 214 38 Auto Pollutant Erriissions (GralllSlMile-Hour) ----CO--------HOX----3487.8 488.4 17545.7 1988.3 19798.7 223B.7
13625.3 1516.8 13614.6 1531.7 ----HC---182.4 fi45.6 fi51.9 527.8 582.6 En wn rm sn All
347-J 55848 ----.. G53 1 4--+ L "'=""= I..e-.-...-, • 3 12 1 ?B 2 2 31.9 D 51.7 E -App -Delay L lr28B9 􀀱􀀲􀁾 (secl 0 -ve-h)-S L.. &1.8 F & ....-& -------􀁾 17 32.9 D --------Hcn SUmMary
Results for Case: KLSPEXAM Keller SprnglMidway Doad Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp Delay L Lane X (secl 0 Grp 􀁾 VIC veh) 􀁾 EB Lper 8.21 Lpro *8.81 0.511 41.& E
T 8.83 8.89 35.5 D H *8.48 1.Bl 72.4 F WB Lper 8.80 Lpro 8.81 8.841 31.9 D TH 8.81 8.82 34.& D NB Lper 8.88 Lpro 8.88 8.661 57.7 E T 8.15 8.31 27.1 D H 8.82 8.84 21.1 C SB Lper 8.B8
Lpro 8.81 8.8&1 14.9 B T *8.47 1.88 53.9 E H 8.11 8.23 24.8 C Int. 8.97 1.81 58.8 E IL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: KLSPEXA" Existing Conditions Xeller SprngtMidway Road AM Peak Version 3.80 Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 3 Outbound Street 1
Including Pockets WD ND SB 255 233 6f. .-I? -------2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Hight Full L Pkt HPkt -EB 1 8 1888 158 -------WB 1 0 1888 58 34?-J NB 1 1 1888 218 58 55-SB 1 1
1088 158 58 048 --. 4) Lane Widths (Feet) 653 l1edian 2 3 4 5 6 1 L 2 Jj:. 3 I 4 --1. 1 • LEB 12.8 12.0 12.0 --"'='"= 102 ·:lr2 2 zal I·r -2 1 􀁾 • WB 12.8 12.0 3 I 2 1 70 2 2 NB 12.8
12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 SB 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 3)Heed to Reyise Channelization? H
N.ETSIM Results For Case: XLSPEXAM Existing Conditions Xeiier Sprng/Midway Road AN Peak Version 3.8& I,III I I I I I!I II II I I i I 􀁾 I -347.J' 5584El --.. 658 1 4 􀁾 L ---=-= I..r
-'J. • 3 I 2 1 78 2 Z SiMulation indicates specified peak period YoluNes exceed entry capacity of following approaches probably due to spillback into upstreaA intersection: EASTBOUND
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: HLSPEXAn Existing Conditions Heller 8prng/Midway Doad An Peak Vers ion 3.8& Queues Spillback in Per Lane Ayg Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (Yo of Peak
App Group (veil) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾 ED L 16/28 2.6 22.8 T 11 2 12.8 6.6 R 481 58 3.4 26.1 All 4.3 26.1 WD L 11 2 2.4 8.8 TR 11 2 14.1 8.8 All 11.4 8.8 L -=•-= 2 Z 6G 􀁾
17 653 4 • I ..r =? 12 1 78 -347 --.J' 5584B --.. 1 L 2 Jl'I.. 3---1..1I zj l 2 1182 ":lr2 2 3 13.4 8.8 8.8 13.4 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 1.1 22.8 16.4 12.7 1.7 11.2 11.1 11.1 8.3 12/14 11 1
81 1 31 5 151 23 61 1 Intersect. NB LTRAll 3D LTHAll
NETSIM Results For Case: XLSPEXAn Heller Sprng/Midway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8b NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average iEMax. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pct. Of Cye les AninatiDn
Max. Q Queue OF Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That q With CanJ t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane
Overflow Of Hon-Turners Queue EB L 16 28 zz.a 188.8 8.8 4:31 T 1 2 8.8 18:15 R 48 58 26.1 7:31 WB L 1 2 8.8 8.8 8.8 8:51 TR 1 2 8.8 4:13 NB L 12 14 13.4 58.8 8.8 7:54 T 1 1 8.8 4:31
R 8 1 8.8 8.B 0.B 4:36 SB L 3 5 B.8 8.B B.B 1:16 T 15 23 0.8 13:57 R 6 7 B.8 8.B 18B.B 2:43 *These perforMance Measures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NETS]M Results for Case: KLSPEXAM Keller SprnglMidway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.B& HETS]M EnyironMental Statistics Fuel COnsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 8.7 8.1 8.8 5.9 4.8 B.B WB B.l B.B B.B 15.7 B.8 8.B NB 4.2 B.7 8.B 18.1 4.2 B.B SB 12.3 B.l 8.B 18.1 4.4 B.8 All 25.3 B.9
8.B 8.7 4.3 8.B Auto Pollutant 􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 RTOR 􀀨􀁇􀁲􀁡􀁍􀁓􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁥􀀭􀁈􀁯􀁵􀁲􀀩 Maneuwrs --HC-----co-----HDX----Colllpleted EB 418.4 7827.4 1814.S Z3 WB S.l 61.7 9.8 1 NB 239.8
79'75.3 BSB.3 1 SB &&1.5 17B7B.2 2248.S 3 All 331.2 9235.1 183B.6
3 -L 4-..., 48 1 t i 129 29 li53 ,.r 13 2 2889 , 􀀧􀀸􀀱􀁾 IIII I t...-I I I I I Ii I! 􀁉􀁾 I 􀁾 III ......-() I I I I I .-17 ------347 --.J' 55848 .. 1 Jj 81 lr3 5 I -.-...J,.I 29 32
--Lane Lengths-Full L Pkt HPkt 10B8 158 388 1008 58 1088 288 208 1088 288 288 Including Pockets WD ND SB 2 fJ 6 2 g 3 -Pkt Lanes-Left Right 2 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 l)NuMber or Lanes ED Approach
Street 5 Outbound Street 2 Input Data for Case: KLSPAMQ3 Xeller Sprng/Midway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ Improvements AM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection Geonetry 2) 3)Meed to Revise Channelization?
M ED UB NB 8B 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 6 EB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 WB 12.8 12.8 NO 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 8B 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: KLSPAMQ3 Keller Sprng/Midway Road Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 AM Peak Version 3.Bb 3 -L 6(; .-17 4i t r 129 29 1]53 I..r 13 IIIII I
I I I I I IIIIIII 􀁾􀁉 􀁉􀀮􀁉􀁾 􀁉􀁾 I I 34?...J 5584B" 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 B.8 8.8 3.6 20.8 22.9 17.8 1.9 12.5 15.6 12.3 8.1 51 6 21 3 01 1 21 3 131 19 21 3 Queues Spillback in
Per Lane Avg Uorst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed ('l. of Peak App Group (yeh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) ---􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀁾 ED L 71 18 1.8 53.6 T 11 2 3.9 38.2 R 441 S8 2.1 8.8 All 3.2 53.6 WB L 11 2
0.5 8.8 TB 11 1 16.8 8.8 All 6.8 B.B riB LTRAll SB LTRAll Intersect.
NETSIM Results for Case: KLSPAMQ3 Keller SprnglMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ Inprovell\ents AM Peak Version 3.81) NETSIM Queue Statistics 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥 *flax. 􀁾􀁡􀁸􀀮 Pet. Pet.
Of Pet. Of Cycles Anifl'latiDn Max. Q Queue Dr TiMe Cycles Where Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q \,lith CanJ t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue LOll9'est
App Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane Overflow Of' Han-Turners Queue ED L 7 18 53.ft 28.8 8.8 8:33 T 1 2 38.2 5:82 R 44 58 8.8 18B.8 8.8 5:09 WB L 1 2 8.8 8.8 8.8 14:41 TR 1 1 8.8 2:27 NB L 5
£, 8.8 B.8 8.8 2:34 T 2 3 8.8 8:51 R 8 1 8.8 8.8 8.8 8:48 3B L Z 3 8.8 B.8 &8.8 1:53 T 13 19 0.8 13:33 R Z :3 8.8 8.8 88.8 18:31 *These performance measures are also shown on sunAary
statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: KLSPAMQ3 Keller Sprng/Midway Road Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 AM Peak Version 􀁡􀀮􀀸􀁾 HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallon
s-----------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 9,4 B.l B.B 4.4 3.5 B.B WB 8.2 8.8 B.B 11.2 8.8 8.8 NB 3.5 8.& B.B 11.4 4.6 8.8 SB 11.B 8.2
B.B 18.4 5.8 8.8 All 24.9 B.8 B.B 8.3 4.5 8.8 Auto Pollutant 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 RTOR (GraMS/Mile-Hour) Maneuwrs ----HC--------co--------HOX--CoJIpleted EB 458.1 7633.4 1114.2 17 IJB
7.3 00.6 18.4 1 NB 282.9 7168.2 761.9 1 SB 663.6 28B97.2 2298.8 9 All 331.0 9744.9 1844.3
Version 3.86 HeM SumMary Results for Case: HLSPAM1. Xeller SprnglMidway fload i>th....c Exist. Traffic WI GMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁦􀁴􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 AM Peak Lane Grp EDLTR -Lane Grp --App Delay
L Delay L X (secl 0 (seci 0 -VI-S -VI-C -ve-h)-S -ve-h)-S *8.11 0.69 38.5 D 37.3 D 8.83 0.14 28.9 D *8.31 0.91 37.4 D IIIII I I I I I 1111111 􀁾􀁉 􀁉􀀮􀁉􀁾 􀁉􀁾 I I 6I] .. 17 WB L 8.81
8.14 38.1 D 36.2 D TR 8.81 0.85 33.2 D HB L 8.84 8.42 39.8 D 17.4 C 347-4 T 8.15 0.38 13.8 B 55-i t i R 8.82 0.83 ?1 B 948-" 129 29 653 3B L 8.81 EL81 37.2 D 24.6 C 1 L 2 JJ 3 I 4 -.J+I
L T *8.47 8.95 25.8 D 58 lr2 2 --ii 1 I..r ! R 8.11 0.19 6.3 B 2 1 11 I 2 1 18 2 1 S I -􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁊􀁾 I [nt. 8.89 8.% 26.6 D -,4 2 2
Input Data for Case: KLSPAM1 leIIer SprnglMidway Doad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ lnproyenents AM Peak Version 3.Bb Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁹 l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 5 Outbound
Street 1 Including Pockets YO NO 3D 266 2 g 􀁾 Ii 6 r-17 2 1 -L 4i t i 129 29 653 2 J! 􀁾􀁾􀀺 lr r·r ===t 2 1 58 2 2 11 I 2 1 IB 2 Z 1 L til S I ...-'.. 1 .-..;,. 4 Lane Widths (Feet)
Median 2 3 4 5 6 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Right Full L Pkt R Pkt ED 2 1 10BB
15B 108 UB 1 0 10B8 58 NB 2 1 1088 208 28ft SB 2 1 10B8 158 258 341...J 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N 55-B40 ..... 4) ED 1m NB SB
NETS]M SUMMary For Case: XLSPAMI Xeller SprnglMidway Road Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 AM Peak Version 3.8& Queues SpiIIback in 28B9 I I Per Lane AYg Worst Lane 􀀧􀀸􀁊􀁾
I I Lane Avg/Max Speed (Yo of Peak I I I I App Group (veh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) I I I I ---L-ED L 51 8 2.5 8.8 I I I I I fJ I! I! I! III T 11 of-6 2 23.5 B.B I I I I I R 121 32 ?8 8.8
------.-17 All 8.4 8.8 WB L 11 1 8.9 8.8 TH 81 1 24.2 8.8 All 10.2 B.B 34?...J NB L 41 5 2.1 8.8 55-1 t i T 11 1 24.8 8.8 848 ---.. 129 29 R 81 8 21.5 8.8 All 16.1i 8.8 fJ53 SB L 11
2 1.5 8.8 1 L 2 JJ 3..-!.II 4 L-..-T BI 11 16.4 8.8 58 1r2 2 ,..r -til ---, 15.5 B.B 2 1 11 f 2 1 18 2 1 R 11 2 5 I All 16.1 8.8 -_.r' Intersect. 12.9 ---, 4 2 2
NETSIM Results for Case: XLSPAM1 Keller Sprng/Midway Jload Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ Ill'provelllents AM Peak Version 3.81) NETSIM Queue Statistics *liverage -tEMax. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of
Pet. Of Cycles Anirr.ation Max. Q Queue Of TiNe Cycles Where Turner FraJlle Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest
App Grp (veIls) (vehs) ALane Overflow Of Hon-Turners queue EB L 5 B 8.8 B.8 0.8 0:85 T 1 2 8.8 18:12 R 12 32 8.8 B.8 8.8 14:19 WB L 1 1 8.8 B.8 8.8 8an TIl 8 1 8.8 2:21 MB L 4 5 8.8
B.0 0.8 2:19 T 1 1 0.8 18:22 R 8 8 8.8 B.8 0.8 0:88 SB L 1 2 8.8 B.8 8.8 0:23 T 8 11 0.8 11:23 R 1 2 8.8 0.8 25.0 2:32 *These perfornance Il'easures are also shown on 􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁹 statistics
screen
ED 6.0 B.B B.B WB 8.1 8.8 B.B NB 3.2 B.5 B.B SB 9.5 8.1 B.B All 18.9 B.? 8.B NETSIM Results for Case: KLSPAMl Keller Sprng/Midway Hoad Exist. TraFfic wI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁄􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳
AM Peak Version 3.8& "ETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses 18.5 lB.6
8.0 15.8 8.8 8.8 11.5 4.9 8.8 12.& &.8 8.8 11.? 5.3 8.8 Auto Pollutant Emissions (GraMS/Mile-Hour) ED WB NB SB All ----HC--29?2 5.5 10B.3 53B.5 257.4 ----co----5166.0 63.0 &627.0 1&432.2
7072.£1 -tlOX---719.8 9.8 &99.9 1845.2 BIB.5 HTOR Maneuvers Conpleted 31188 Average speed on previous page may he overstated since it was necessary to combine yellow and all-red intervals
2 1 'L 58 66 .-71 i r 451 f2Z 284& -419 ---t 44-22B" 21.5 C 1 2 JJ:. 3 L 􀁾..: 14 l1r2 1 Z3 ":1r2 1 -􀁾 l 2 2 =r 38.1 D 26.9 D HCM 8umnary Results for Case: HLSPEXPM Heller 8prngIMidway
HoadExisting Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L Lane X (seci 0 (seci 0 Grp vis vic veh) 􀁾 vehl 􀁾 ED Lper B.88 29.5 D Lpro *8.27 8.911 37.9 D T B.83 0.12 21.3
C H B.12 0.25 18.6 B 1m Lper B.81l Lpro B.8B 8.211 28.7 C TH 􀁾􀀮􀀸􀁂 0.69 35.9 D NB Lper 8.8B Lpro 􀁾􀀮􀀲􀀸 0.921 31.3 D T B.44 0.99 26.2 D H 8.81 0.82 6.2 B 8B Lper B.IB Lpro B.8B
B.16" 27.5 D T *8.19 8.74 24.5 C H B.2B 0.48 18.9 B Int. B.01 0.94 25.9 DIL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: HLSPEXPM Existing Conditions Xeller 8prng/Midway Road PM Peak Version 3.8b Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 l)NuNber of Lanes EB Approach Street 3 Outhound Street 1
Including Pockets UB NB 8D 255 233 "L-58 +--1)1) -------.-11 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Right Full L Pkt R Pkt -ED 1 8 1008 158 -------UB 1 8 1888 58 􀀴􀀱􀀹􀁾 MIl 1 1 1888 218
58 44-8B 1 1 1888 158 58 228--' 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N 4) Lane Widths (Feet) 2846 Median 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 􀁊􀁬􀀺􀁾 3 L 4 I --1..1 ED 12.8 12.8 12.8 􀀱􀁾 llr2 1 "Ilr 􀀭􀁾 l 2
2 -􀁾 UB 12.8 12.0 Z3 I 2 1 7 2 1 MIl 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 5 L G I • 􀁾􀀮􀁉 ---8B 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 ----, • 􀁉􀁾􀁲 18 2 1 11 122
NETSIM SUMMary for Case: KLSPEXpn Existing Conditions Keller Sprng/Midway Road PM Peak Uers ion a. 8& 2 1 L. 58 4--6f. .-71 i r 451 f22 2846 ItItIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I -􀀴􀀱􀀹􀁾 44228 ---.. 1 2 J!:. 3 L 􀁾􀀮􀀺 14 llr2 1 Z3 ·:lr2 1 -􀁾 l 2 2 =r 54.8 B.B 8.8 54.0 8.0 8.8 8.8 8.0 1.8 12.5 11.8 UL4 8.3 11.5 5.8 11.2 18.6 01 1 51 18 61 8 211 24 91 12
11 1 􀁑􀁵􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁳 Spillback in Per Lane Avg Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak App 􀁇􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁰 (veh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) ED --L---121 22 2.7 38.9 T 11 1 13.4 8.8 R 21 4 21.7 8.8
All 18. (] 3EI. 9 WB L 11 2 2.8 8.8 TR 41 (] 18.7 8.8 All 18.8 B.8 NB LTRAll SB LTnAll Intersect.
NETSIM Results for Case: XLSPEXPM Xeller Sprng/Midway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version a.8& NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average -lEMax. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pet. Of Cycles Anination
l1ax. Q Queue or Tillie Cycles Where Turner Fra.rr.e Per Cycle Per That q With Can' t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overf lows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (....ehs)
A Lane Overflow Of "on-Turners queue ED L 12 22 30.9 8B.0 0.0 13:21 T 1 1 0.8 0:34 R 2 4 0.8 8:39 WB L 1 2 0.8 B.0 40.0 0:81 TR 4 IJ 0.8 7:11 NB L 21 24 54.8 98.0 0.0 7:89 T 9 12 0.8
8:84 R 1 1 0.8 8.0 30.0 1:18 3D L 0 1 0.8 B.B B.B 5:53 T 5 18 0.8 1:39 R 6 B 0.8 48.0 50.0 13:38 *These performance measures are also shown on 􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁹 statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: XLSPEXPM Existing Conditions Keller Sprng/Midway Hoad PM Peak Version 􀀳􀀮􀀸􀁾 HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Mil
es Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 2.9 8.8 8.8 12.6 13.5 B.8 UB 8.7 8.1 8.8 13.9 6.4 B.0 HB 13.8 8.2 0.8 9.4 4.8 B.0 SB 6.6 8.5 0.8 18.8 4.4 B.0 All 24.B
8.8 8.8 18.1 5.2 8.8 RTDi ManeuYers CoMpleted Zl 92 41 Auto Pollutant Enissions (GraNSlMile-Hour) ----00--------MOX----2433.2 343.6 435.3 61.4 22861.8 2583.3 11416.8 125B.3 9886.4 1859.7
---HC--144.7 33.5 762.2 372.8 328.3 EB UB NB SB AllAverage speed on previous page nay be overstated since it was necessary to conhine yellow and all-red intervals
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: KLSPPMQ Keller SprnglMidway Road Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ 􀁬􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁍􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.8& Queues Spi IIback in 848 Per Lane A....g Worst Lane
Lane Avg/Max Speed (Yo of Peak '2􀁊􀁾 App Group (ve}l) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁽􀁬􀀩 Period) ---t-EB L 61 8 3.8 8.B 58 oli--G6 T 11 1 2G.E1 8.8 R 21 4 13.4 B.8 ------.-71 All 13.4 B.B WB L 11 2 1.4 B.B
TH 41 8 10.7 B.B All 9.6 B.B 􀀴􀀱􀀹􀁾 MB L 41 6 4.8 ELB 44-i t i T 91 13 16.5 B.B 228 --.. 451 22 R 81 1 16.9 B.B All 15.1 B.B 2846 SB L 11 1 14.7 B.8 1 2 J! 3 L 4 L 􀀱􀁾 llr2 1 -T 51
9 14.9 B.B 28 lr2 1 --􀀭􀁾 l 􀁾 n 51 lEi 7.9 E1.E1 2 2 15 2 1 S 1 All 14.1 B.8 _.1"1 Intersect. 14.2 "or 15 122
HETSIM Results For Case: RLSPPMQ Reller Sprng/Midway Doad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ llllprovelllents PM Peak Version 3.8& H:ETSIM Queue Statistics -tEAverage *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pet.
Of Cycles Anilllation flax. Q Queue OF TiMe Cycles Uhere Turner Frallte Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJ t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Du.e To Queue Longest App
Grp (vells) (..,.ehs) ALane Overflow Of "on-Turners Queue EB L 6 0 8.8 8.8 8.8 12:84 T 1 1 8.8 8:34 R 2 4 8.8 EL8 8.8 8:39 IJB L 1 2 8.8 8.8 48.0 0:81 TR 4 0 8.8 13:22 HB L 4 I) 8.8
EL0 18.8 14:42 T 9 13 8.8 11:81) R 8 1 8.8 8.8 8.8 1:14 SB L 1 1 8.a 8.8 8.8 1:14 T 5 9 0.8 1:37 R 5 18 8.8 18.8 8.8 11:50 *These perforMance Illeasures are also shown on sWllllllary
statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: 􀁾􀁌􀁓􀁐􀁐􀁍􀁑 􀁾􀁥􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁲 Sprng/Midway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 􀀳􀀮􀀸􀁾 HETSIM Environnental Statistics Fuel Consunption
-------------Gallons-----------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 2.6 8.1 e.B 14.5 18.8 8.8 YB 8.7 8.1 8.8 13.6 4.5 8.8 KB 18.7 8.2 8.8 12.2
5.6 8.8 SB 6.2 8.5 8.8 18.7 4.6 8.8 All 28.2 8.8 8.8 12.1 5.2 8.8 RTOII Maneuwrs CQlltp leted 2662 SS Auto Pollutant Emissions 􀀨􀁇􀁲􀁡􀁾􀁳􀀯􀁍􀁩􀁬􀁥􀀭􀁈􀁯􀁵􀁲􀀩 ----eD--------HDX----3814.5
364.8 481.8 65.5 18512.4 2866.2 12162.9 1291.3 8542.9 946.7 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁈􀁃􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 134,4 34.6 685.8 35B.3 283.1 ED YB NB SB AllAverage speed on previous page 􀁾􀁡􀁹 be overstated since
it was necessary to conhine yellow and all-red intervals
HCM 􀁓􀁵􀁾􀁎􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results for Case: HLSPPM2 Heller SprnglMidway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ + Other IMpr PM Peak Version 3.86 -Lane Grp --App -848 I Delay L Delay L 'Z!l I Lane X (secl
0 (secl 0 I Grp veh) 8 vell) S I VIS vIc ----------I I L-EDL iEfi.140.78 31.2 D 25.5 D I I I I I 58 T a.sa 0.16 24.4 C I􀁾 I!I!III ....-66 I I I I I R *9.88 0.19 12.9 D ------;-71 WB
L 8.85 0.26 24.4 C 25.7 D TR 8.88 0.46 26.6 D NBL 8.14 0.68 25.7 D 23.8 C 419 --.J" T *8.44 8.% 22.6 C 44-i t i R 8.81 0.82 4.7 A 228 --.. 451 22 2846 3D L *8 .81 0.14 38.1 D 18.5 C
1 2 Jl 3 L 4 L T 8.19 0.61 28.4 C 􀀱􀁾 11r2 1 za lr2 1 ---s 12 2 􀁾 R 8.2B 0.41 11.4 B 15 2 1 5 I I _.r l Int. 8.66 8.77 22.3 C I',r 15 122
B48 I 􀀱􀁊􀁾 IIII J 'LI I I I I 58 I! I! '! I 􀁾􀁉 ot--66 I I I I I ------.-71 Including Pockets WB NB SB 2 & & 2 3 3 1)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 5 Outbound Street 1 Input Data
for Case: HLSPPN2 Keller Sprng/Midway Road Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ + Other INpr PM Peak Version 􀀳􀀮􀀸􀁾 Intersection Geometry 2 1 -L 4i t r 451 22 2846 J.,r15 122 1 2 􀁾 3 L 􀀱􀁾 l1r2
1 28 lr2 1 -sl 2 Z 􀁾 5 I ___1'"1 Lane Widths (Feet) Median Z 3 4 5 6 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 Z) -Pkt Lanes---Lane
lengths--Left Right Full L Pkt R Pkt EB 2 1 1088 158 100 WI 1 0 1008 108 NB 2 1 1088 ze8 200 SB 2 1 1088 158 250 419.J 3)Need to Revise Channelization? H 44-228-" EB IJB NB SB 4)
NETSIM Sunnary for Case: KLSPPM2 Keller SprnglMidway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ + Other IMpr PM Peal< Version 3.86 Queues Spi llbacl< in B4B I Per Lane A...g Worst Lane 􀀧􀀲􀁊􀁾 I Lane
Avg/Max Speed (Yo of Peak II App Group (yell) ---(nph) Period) I I t..-ED L 51 8 3.8 8.8 I I 1 I I 58 24.8 I 􀁾 I! I! IW oIQ--66 T 11 3 B.B I I I I I H 11 2 22.1 8.8 ------r-11 All 13.8
B.B UB L 11 2 2.3 B.B TR 31 1 12.6 B.B All 10.9 8.8 419-J fiB L 41 f; 4.6 B.B 44-i t i T 91 13 16.2 B.B 22B ---.. 451 22 H BI 1 16.8 8.8 All 14.8 B.B 2846 8B L 11 1 5.6 B.B . 1 2 Jj
3 L 4 L 􀀱􀁾 11r2 1 28 lr2 1 --T 41 6 15.1 B.l 􀀭􀁾 1 􀁾 H III 11 8.2 f1.f1 2 2 15 2 1 5 I All 14.4 B.l -1.. 1 Intersect. 14.3 ('or 15 122
NETSIM Results For Case: HLSPPM2 Keller Sprng/Midway Hoad Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ + Other 􀁉􀁾􀁆􀁲 PM Peal< Version 3.8& NETSIM Queue Statistics 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥 *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. or
Pet. or Cycles AniMtiDn Max. Q Queue OF Tillie Cycles IJhere Turner Frallle Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJ t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest
App Grp (vehs) (vehs) ALane Overflow or Han-Turners Queue EB L 5 8 8.e 8.8 8.8 11:84 T 1 3 8.e 14:3& H 1 2 0.8 8.8 8.8 4:43 InI L 1 2 8.8 8.0 8.0 3:25 TR 3 ? 8.e 12:23 NB L 4 & 8.e 8.0
18.8 10:41 T 9 13 8.e 10:88 H 0 1 0.8 8.0 0.0 8:14 3B L 1 1 8.8 EL0 8.0 3:83 T 4 Ii 0.1 0:35 H G 11 8,8 8.0 0.0 14:83 *These perfornance Measures are also shown on sunnary statistics
screen
NETSIM Results For Case: HLSPPM2 Heller Sprng/Midway Boad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ + Other Inpr PM Peak Version 􀀳􀀮􀀸􀁾 ttET8lM Environll\ental statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons--------
---------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 2.4 B.8 9.8 15.G 9.3 8.8 WB 8.7 8.1 B.B 14.6 5.5 8.8 NB 18.7 8.2 B.B 12.2 5.7 8.8 8D 6.1 8.5 ELB 18.7
4.3 8.8 All 19.9 8.8 B.B 12.2 5.8 8.8 Auto Pollutant Enissions (GraMSIM i Ie-Hour) EB WB NB 8D All ---HC---121.1 :U.9 G81,tJ 352.2 276.6 ---(;()----2255.8 472.2 18166.8 12005.5 9244.7
----110X---381.7 64.5 2825.2 1288.2 917.9 RTOB Maneuvers CoMpleted Z972 48 Average speed on previous page nay he overstated since it was necessary to conhine yellow and all-red intervals
HCM SumMary Results for Case: BELTEXAM Beltway Dr Existing Conditions AM Peak IMidway :Road Version 3.8&L -=-= I2Z 14 71 .-338 4 + i r ltE 1B3 1249 L 129 -J' 188316 .. 2 JI' 3 I 􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀮
---1.1 -􀁾 l 2' 1 77·:1r2 2 Z6 53.9 E 21.5 C 39.8 D 1 -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L Lane X (secl 0 (secl 0 Grp VIS vIC veh) 􀁾 veIl) 􀁾 ED Lper 8.80 53.1 E Lpro B.89 0.331 24.5 C T
B.87 8.39 41.8 E n *8.24 0.97 69.6 F WD Lper B.19 Lpro *8.17 8.971 57.3 E TR B.87 8.35 48.6 E MB Lper 8.46 Lpro 8.84 0.941 71.2 F T 8.27 8.52 18.1 C R B.82 8.82 4.8 A SD Lper B.88 Lpro
8.82 8.181 11.4 B T *8.53 1.B1 39.4 D n B.81 8.81 4.7 A Int. B.94 1.88 37.4 D#L TOTAL
Input Data for Case: BELrEXAM Existing Conditions Beltway Dr /Midway Hoad AM Peak Version 3.86 Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 L􀁾•22 'L-14 71 .-338 1249 6 Including Pockets IJD ND SB
255 1 3 3 Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach street 3 Outbound Street 1 2) -Pkt
Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Hight Full L Pkt HPkt EB 1 1 1088 75 75 t IJB 1 0 1008 125 NO 1 1 1088 115 75' SB 1 1 1888 188 108 3)Heed to Reyise Channelization? H 􀁾 4) EB WB NB SB
NETSIM Hesults For Case: BELTEXAM Existing Conditions Beltway Dr IMidway Road AM Peak Version 3.8& 2465 I J4 )􀁚􀁾 IIII L.. I 14 I I I I 4-71 􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁉 338 I I I I r-·L 􀁾I22 4
i r 193 iB3 1249 Itit III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I 129 -.J 18B316 --.. 1 L 2 JJ:. -6l 2 1 77 ":lr2 2 26 I.JB X NB X 􀁓􀁩􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮 results indicate that the peak period
traffic 􀁮􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 identified hy X are oversaturated and cannot he serviced Approach LeFt Thru Right
NETSIM SUMmary for Case: BELTEXAM Existing Conditions Beltway Dr /Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.8& 129..J 180316 ........ L􀁾• 2 2 't-14 04--71 .-338 4 .. i r 183 i83 1249 I,"r =? 12
1 27 L 2 Jjl 3 I I.. __1""1 -Gl 21 77 +:lr2 2 26 1 Queues Spillback in Per Lane Avg Worst Lane Lane Avy/Max Speed (x of Peak App Grollp (veh) (mp}l) Period) ED -L-71 12 ----r:5 33. I]
T 7/13 9.1 8.8 R 9/13 2.2 8.8 All 7.3 33.6 WB L 24/31 1.9 66.3 TR 41 6 5.2 8.8 All 4.5 66.3 NB L 191 24 8.2 86.7 T 81 14 8.9 8.8 R 21 4 14.5 8.8 All 7.6 86.7 3B L 21 3 1.7 8.8 T 121
17 14.3 8.8 R 11 3 16.6 8.8 All 14.1 8.8 Intersect. 9.8
HETSIM Results For Case: BELTEXAn Beltway Dr IMidway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8& HETSIM Queue Statistics *i4verage iEMax. *flax. Pct. Pet. or Pet. Of Cycles Animation
tfax. Q Queue OF Tine Cycles Where Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJt Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane
Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue EB L 7 12 33.fi 51L8 fiG.7 11:23 T 7 13 8.8 14:2fi R 9 13 8.8 58.8 83.3 8:48 VB L 24 31 GG.3 83.3 IG.7 13:52 TR 4 fi 8.8 1:55 NB L 19 24 8G.7 83.3 8.8 13:57
T 8 14 8.8 12:B3 H Z 4 8.8 8.8 58.8 11:54 SB L Z 3 8.8 8.8 33.3 B:t9 T 12 17 0.8 2:56 H 1 3 8.8 8.8 58.8 B:t5 *These perforMance measures are also shown on summary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: BELTEXAM Existing Conditions Beltway Dr IMidway Road AM Peak Version 3.86 NETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 3.4 B.1 B.B 9.4 7.6 B.0 WB 4.1 8.2 B.8 6.3 4.2 8.B NB 8.6 8.B B.8 7.8 4.8 8.8 8B 18.6 8.7 B.8 11.7 5.4 8.8 All 26.8 1.B B.8
9.3 4.7 8.B Auto Pollutant Enissions RTOR (GraMs/Mile-Hour) Maneuvers ----HC--------Co-------HOX--CoMpleted EB 178.3 2782.4 486.6 41 WB 281.6 3178.8 476.1 B NB 485.4 14128.8 1541.8 B
SB 591.8 174B1.8 2884.9 B All 31i2.3 9370.5 1187.4
HCM 􀀸􀁵􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results for Case: BELTAM2 Beltway Dr Exist. TraFfic wI CMAQ &Other 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲 AM Peak tMidway Road Vel'S ion 3.EII; L􀁾•2Z L.. 14 ..-71 􀁾 338 i r 1B3 l83 1249 4 I ..r
=i'" I 2 1 27 L 129 -.J" 188316-'2 JI' 3 I 􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀮 -1.1 -􀁾 l 2 1 77 ·:1r2 Z 26 53.9 E 21.5 C 39.8 D 1 -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L Lane X (secl 0 (sect 0 Grp VIS VIC veh) 􀁾 veil)
􀁾 EB Lper 8.80 41.2 E Lpro 8.89 0.331 24.5 C T 8.87 B.39 41.8 E R *8.2e B.B2 49.6 E WB Lper 8.19 Lpro *8.17 B.97t 57.3 E TR 8.86 B.35 4e.6 E riB Lper 8.46 Lpro 8.84 0.941 71.2 F T 8.27
0.52 18.1 C R 8.82 B.82 4.8 A 8B Lper 8.8e Lpro 8.82 B.18t 11.4 B T *8.53 1.81 39.4 D R 8.81 B.81 4.7 A Int. 8.ge B.96 35.9 D#L TOTAL
Input Data for Case: DELTAM2 Beltway Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ &Other IMpr AM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection GeoMetry I)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 3 Outbound Street
1 Including Pockets WE ND SB 255 1 3 3 2465 􀁾􀀴􀀡 􀀲􀁾 t.....-14 "'i--71 .-338 2 2 L ""•="'= 4 .. i r 103 1B3 1249 1 L 2 Jj:. 􀁾􀀮􀀺 -􀁾 1 2 1 77 ·:lr2 2 26 6 Lane Widths (Feet) Median
Z 3 4 5 12.tJ 12.0 12.0 12.tJ 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 2) -Pkt Lanes--Lane Lengths--Left Ilight Full L Pkt R PM EB 1 1 1888 158 158 WB 1 0 1088 158 129
--.J" fiB 1 1 1088 158 150 18BSB 1 1 Hl8B 108 108 316 .... 3)Heed to Revise Channelization? H 4) EB WB NB SB
NETSIM Results for Case: BELTAM2 Beltway Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic Wi CMAQ &Other INpr AM Peak Version 3.9& 2465 I j4 J􀀲􀁾 I,II 'LI 14 I I I I +-71 IIIllj I 338 I I I I .-SiMulation
results indicate that the peak period traffic moveMents identified by Xare oversaturated and cannot be serviced Approach Left Ihru Right WB X NB X 129-J 18831&-"1 L 2 J!I 3 I I.. -1+1
-􀁾 l 2 1 '77 +:lr2 2 26 i r 103 iB3 1249 L --•=-= 2 2
METSIM SUMnary for Case: BELTAM2 Beltway Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic wi CMAQ &Other Inpr AM Peak Version 3.80 L􀁾• 2 2 t....... 14 71 .-338 1249 4 129 -.J' 188316 ---.. 1 L 2 JI'
3 1 􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀮 --1.. 1 -􀁾 1 2 1 77 ":lr2 2 26 81.3 8.8 8.B 81.3 B.8 8.B B.B 8.8 7.2 8.8 8.8 7.2 61.1 8.8 61.1 8.2 9.2 . 17.5 7.4 2.2 14.3 14.1 14.2 9.5 11 2 13/19 11 3 281 25 71 9 11
1 Queues Spillback in Per Lane Avg Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (x of Peak App Group (veh) (nph) Period) E-B--L-􀁾􀀶􀀭􀀯􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀺􀀱􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀸 2.B T 61 18 15.7 R 81 11 3.2 All 10.2 VB
L 231 32 1.7 TR 31 7 6.2 All 4.8 ME LTRAll 8B LTRAll Intersect.
NETSIM Results For Case: BELTAM2 Beltway Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ &Other IMpr AM Peak Version 8.86 NETSrM Queue Statistics 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀀭􀁥 iEMax. *Max. Pet. Pct. Of' Pet.
Of Cycles Anination Max. Q Queue or TiMe Cycles Yllere Turner Frallle Per Cycle Per Tllat Q With CanJt Enter Bay Showing Ln Per La.ne Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Long-est App
Grp (vehs) (vehs) ALane Overflow Of Hon-Turners Queue EB L G 18 7.2 16.7 8.8 11:27 T 6 18 8.8 14:23 R 8 11 8.8 16.7 33.3 8:89 UB L 23 32 61.1 83.3 16.7 13:52 TR 3 7 8.8 1:17 NB L 28
25 81.3 83.3 8.8 9:14 T 7 9 8.8 4:29 R 1 1 8.8 B.8 8.8 4:12 3B L 1 2 8.8 B.8 16.7 8:16 T 13 19 0.8 12:49 R 1 3 8.8 B.8 66.7 8:17 *These perforMance neasures are also shown on sUllllllary
sta.tistics screen
tiETSIM Results for Case: BEUAM2 Beltway Dr /Midway Road Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ &Other 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲 AM Peak Version 3.8& HET3IM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel COnsuMption -------------Gallons--------------
---------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 2.b 8.1 8.8 12.5 18.8 8.8 IaIB 3.B 8.2 8.8 G.7 4.2 B.8 NB 8.7 8.9 8.8 7.8 4.8 B.8 3D 18.6 8.7 0.8 11.7 5.(:)
8.8 All 25.B 1.8 0.8 9.8 4.6 8.8 Auto Pollutant Enissions RTOR (GraMs/Mile-Hour) Maneu....ers ---HC------CO-----HDX--􀁃􀁯􀁾􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁤 ED 134.7 2547.1 321.1 51 laiD 18B.3 3819.8 443.4
1 tiD 488.2 13537.8 1522.3 1 3D 596.5 17927.7 2837.5 8 All 349.9 9258.1 18Bl.1
HeM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results for Case: BELTEXPM Beltway Dr tMidway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8n -Lane Grp --App -1495 I Delay L Delay L J8 􀀡􀀶􀁾 I Lane X (seCI 0 (sect
0 I Grp veh) 8 veh) S I VIS vIc ----------I L-EB Lper 8.80 25.3 D I 44 Lpro 8.B5 8.351 28.9 C I I I I .ot--145 T *fI.89 0.61 27.8 D IjljlJ I I I I I r-135 R 8.88 0.55 26.8 D WB Lper
8.88 19.5 C Lpro *fI.89 0.461 16.8 C TR fLU 0.51 21.5 C liB -3' 138-MB Lper 8.88 15.8 B lli4 --.. i r Lpro *8.17 0.771 17.8 C T 8.45 0.89 15.3 C 269 tB3 H 8.18 0.37 9.4 B 1978 8B Lper
8.88 21.2 C 1 L 2 3 'l' 4 .. I I 􀁾 -1 Lpro 8.85 0.381 10.6 B 6l 511:"2 1 "111" r T *B.37 8.93 21.9 C 2 1 38 113 2 4 2 1 R 8.82 0.86 11.2 B 5 􀁾 6 -I I--􀁾 --=-= Int. 8.72 0.85 18.2
C IL TOTAL r . • 3 2 1 18 3 2
r2 1 191B • --•=-= 3 Z 3 II' 4 .. 􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀮 --1 1115 1" 213B "1111"1324 L 2 3 15 G 􀁾􀀭 -. 􀁲􀁾--2 1 18 Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 Input Data tor Case: BELTEXPM Beltway Dr IMidway Hoad Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection Geometry 1495 I 􀁾􀀸􀀡 􀀶􀁾 I l)Number of Lanes
Including Pockets I EB WB NB SB II t..-Approach street 3 2 5 5 I 44 Outhound Street 1 1 3 3 I I I I .....-145 I! IJI!I 135 I I I I .-2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Rig-lit Full L
Pkt R Pkt EB 1 1 1888 75 75 IJB 1 0 1888 125 􀁇􀀸􀁾 NB 1 1 1888 115 75 138-SB 1 1 1088 188 188 164 --. 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N i r 2G9 t83 EB WB NB SB 4)
NETSIM SUMMary for Case: BELTEXP" Beltway Dr IMidway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.B6 Queues Spi IIback in 1495 Per Lane Ayg Worst Lane J8! 􀀶􀁾 Lane Ayg/Max Speed (Yo of
Peak App Group (ye]l) (Mph) Period) ---'L-EB L 21 3 2.4 B.B 44 T 31 6 18.6 8.8 "II--145 H 21 4 4.9 B.B .-135 All 14.9 B.B IJB L 21 4 3.6 B,B TR 41 6 16.3 B.B All 13,8 B.B GB-J ',t'It'Ii'I
138-I I I I I I NB L 181 14 1.5 35.6 164 ----.. , I T 181 17 13.7 B.B I I R 41 7 5.5 B.B I I , I All 12.3 35,6 197B SB L 41 7 1.7 4.3 1 L 2 3 T 4 .. I I .. --..J T 181 12 12,7 B.B 6
1 5 11:+2 1 "111+ r R 11 2 13.3 8.B 2 1 3B II 3 2 4 2 1 5 £, 􀁾 I All 12.1 4.3 ---• -=-=-or-::-=t" I Intersect. 12.5 3 2 1 18 3 2
NETSIM Results for Case: BELTEXPM Beltway Dr IMidway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8b NETSIM Queue Statistics *itverage *Max. *f1ax. Pet. Pet. Of Pct. Of Cycles Aninatioll
Max. Q Queue or TiMe Cycles Uhere Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) C....ehs) ALane
Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue ED L 2 3 0.8 B.0 18.2 3:22 T 3 6 B.8 14:21 H 2 4 B.8 B.B 18.2 18:80 WD L 2 4 B.8 B.B B.B 1:49 TH 4 6 B.8 4:57 NB L 10 14 35.6 9B.9 36.4 3:56 T 1B 17 B.8
5:25 R 4 7 B.8 1B.2 72.7 5:17 3D L 4 7 4.3 9.1 36.4 1B:18 T 10 12 0.8 5:28 R 1 2 B.8 B.B 36.4 oau *These performance Measures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: BELTEXPM Existing Conditions Beltway Dr IMidway Road PM Peak Version 3.8G HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 1.8 B.8 0.B 17.4 8.8 B.B IJB 1.B 8.8 B.8 1G.& B.8 ILB NB 12.6 8.4 B.8 UI.? 4.9 8.B SB 8.4 B.B B.B 18.9 4.1 EL8 All 23.4 1.2
B.8 11.4 4.4 8.B Auto Pollutant EMissions (GraMs/Mile-Hour) EB WB fiB SB All ----HC---&1.7 5B.3 &96.1 474.8 320.7 ----co---948.3 788.B 19378.B 14135.B B810.5 -HOX-136.9 185.4 2334.6
1545.5 183B.6 RTOR ManeuYers CoMpleted 4B1 295 Average speed on previous page May be overstated since it was necessary to cOMhine yellow and all-red interyals
r2 1 1978 1 r 269 t03 I "'== •3 2 3 III 4 􀀢􀀬􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀮 ---l lfl + "'Ill. 5 II 2 1 38 I I 3 2 4 2 1495 I 􀁾􀀸􀀡 􀁇􀁾 IIII 't.-I 44 I I I I olIl--145 Il' JIJI 135 I I I I ;-L liB......t
130164 --. s 􀁾 6 .----• r=? 3 2 1 18 19.5 C 15.8 B 21.2 C 1 HeM Sumnary Results for Case: BELTPMl· Beltway Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ Improvenents PM Peak Version 3.8b -Lane
Grp --App Delay L Delay L Lane X (secl 0 (secI 0 Grp vIs vIc veh) 􀁾 veh) 􀁾 ED Lper 8.88 25.3 D Lpro 8.85 B.351 2B.0 C T *8.89 8.61 27.8 D R B.88 8.55 26.8 D IJB Lper B.88 Lpro *8.89
0.461 16.0 C TR B.l1 0.51 21.5 C NB Lper B.88 Lpro *6.17 6.771 17.8 C T 8.45 8.09 15.3 C R 8.18 8.37 9.4 B SB Lper B.88 Lpro B.85 8.381 18.6 B T *8.37 0.93 21.0 C R 8.82 8.86 11.2 B
Int. B.720.05 18.2 C IL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: BELTPMl Beltway Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. TraFfic wI CMAQ Inprovenents PM Peak Version 3.8b 3)Meed to Revise Channelization? H t..-44 145 􀁾 135 &B --.J' 1381&4-" --Lane
LengthsFull L Pkt R Pkt 18B8 158 158 1008 15B 18BB 15B 158 18BB 188 IB8 Including Pockets UO NO 8D 255 1 3 3 -Pkt Lanes-Left Rig}lt 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Intersection Geonetry I)Nunber of
Lanes ED Approach Street 3 Outbound Street 1 2) EB UD ND 8D 4) Lane Widths (Feet) 1978 Median 2 3 4 5 6 1 L 2 3 T 4 .. I I. EB 12.8 12.0 12.0 --.J 511:·2 1 r 61 "111· YD 12.8 12.0 2
1 3B 113 2 4 2 1 NB 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 5 􀁾 6 • • 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 -8D r 􀁾. "'="'= t 3 2 1 18 3 2
NETSIM SUMMary for Case: BELTPMl Beltway Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ IMproveMents PM Peak Version 8.86 Queues Spillback in 1495 I Per Lane A.....g Worst Lane j8 􀀡􀁾 I Lane
Avg/Max Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak II App Group (.....e}]) b'lp}]) Period) ---I 'L-EB L 21 4 4.5 B.B I 44 I I I I "i--145 T 3/& 18.& 8.8 I! I ! IJI n 21 4 7.4 B.B I I I I .-135 All 15.2 B.B
WB L 21 4 4.3 B.B TR 41 & 17.B B.B All 14.3 B.B 􀀶􀀸􀁾 138-NB L 91 13 1.B 13.2 1&4-' i r T 91 15 1&.2 B.B 2&9 t83 R 31 B 7.& B.B All 14.B 13.2 1978 8B L 51 & 1.& B.B 1 L 2 . 3 T 4 .1
I. --l T 91 12 12.7 B.8 &l 5l1:+2 1 .'11• r R 14.1 2 1 381132 4 2 1 1/Z 8.8 S 􀁾 & I All 12.1 B.B -• --􀁾 r ::-=t" I Intersect. 13.4 3 2 1 18 3 2
NETSIM Results For Case: BELTPMl Beltway Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ Ill\provelllents PM Peak Version a.BIi NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average -tEMax. *f1ax. Pet. Pet. Of Pet.
Of Cycles An il'Itation Max. Q Queue OF Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frallle Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest
App Grp (veIls) (.....ehs) ALane Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue EB L 2 4 B.8 8.B 8.8 7:24 T 3 b 8.8 14:21 R 2 4 8.8 8.8 8.8 18:87 WB L 2 4 8.8 8.8 8.8 1:47 TR 4 £I 8.8 4:57 NB L 9 13
13.2 36.4 27.3 3:5£1 T 9 15 B.8 12:88 R 3 8 B.8 EL8 18.2 4:58 SB L 5 £I 8.8 8.8 54.5 8:81 T 9 12 8.8 5:23 R 1 2 B.8 8.B 27.3 8:81 *These 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥 Measures are also shown
on sUllllllary statistics screen
NETSIM Results tor Case: BELTPMl Beltway Dr /Midway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons----
-------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 1.3 8.8 8.8 17.8 8.8 B.B YD 1JJ 8.8 0.8 16.9 8.0 8.0 NB 11.2 8.4 0.8 12.1 4.8 8.8 SD 8.7 8.8 8.8
Ut6 4.2 8.8 All 22.2 1.2 8.8 12.8 4.4 8.0 Auto Pollutant EAissions (GraMs/Mile-Hour) ED YD ND SD All ----HC-65.? 58.8 618.3 491.7 386.3 ----co----1296.1 852.8 17518.4 15139.8 8701.6
----HOX---157.8 187.2 2815.6 1638.4 977.B RTOR Maneuvers COMpleted 412 286 Average speed on previous page 􀁾􀁡􀁹 he overstated since it was necessary to conhine yellow and all-red intervals
-App -I I Delay L 2169 I I 􀁾􀀳 􀁾􀀷􀁾 I I (secl 0 I I -ve-h)-S I I L-31.2 D I I I 309 I I I 􀁾 125 I 􀁾 I!I I I I .-118 *8.89 8.74 35.2 D B.84 B.14 19.8 C Lane HCM 􀁓􀁕􀁾􀁍􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results
for Case: LI"DEXAM Lindherg Dr IMidway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.86 -Lane Grp Delay L X (seCI 0 Grp VIS vIc vehJ 3 ED LT R UB LT *8.15 0.96 39.9 D 26.8 D ----------------R
8.18 8.42 12.9 B 21 ---!' 'It'IrI 92-I I I I I I HB Lper iEfI.29 27.1 D 39 ........ I I Lpro B.81 8.441 26.6 D I , i r I I TR 8.27 0.92 27.1 D 87 t138 I I I I 1019 3B Lper 8.88 2&.4
D 1 J!L 􀁾􀁟2 J!:. 3 L:-_ 4---1 Lpro iEfI.29 0.941 33.8 D Z5 +:1r2 1 -􀀭􀁾 l 􀁾 TR 8.47 8.99 25.1 D 12 2 1 2 2 18 2 2 S -L. Int. 8.93 8.93 26.7 D#L TOTAL r 14 2 2
Input Data for Case: LINDEXAM Existing Conditions Lindberg Dr IMidway Road AM Peak Version 3.8b 1 􀁊􀁊􀁌􀁾􀀭 2 JJL 3 􀁌􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀮􀁲 12 2 1 Z5 ·:1r2 1 -􀁾 l 2 2 􀁾 2 Z IB19 i r 87 t138
I titI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21G8 I 􀁾􀀳􀁾􀁾 III t-. I I 3B9 I I I "Ii--125 IJI JI I I I r-118 -Lr22 21 --.J" 9239--"14 5 -Lane Lengths-_-----J Full L Pkt HPlrt 1008
1008 125 looB IG8 1008 288 Including Pockets YO NO 3B 244 133 -PM Lanes-Left Hight B B B 1 1 B 1 B Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 llNuNber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 OUtbound street
2 2) 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N ED IJB NB 3D 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 6 ED 12.8 12.B WB 12.8 12.B NB 12.8 12.B 12.B 12.8 3D 12.8 12.B 12.B 12.8
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: LIHDEXA" Lindberg Dr /Midway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.86 Queues Spi lIback in I 2168 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane j3 􀁾􀀿􀁾 I Lane Avg/Max
Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak I App Group (veh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) I 'L----I I 309 EB LT 61 7 5.6 8.8 I I I of--125 R 11 1 19.9 8.8 IJIJI I I I .-118 All 6.9 8.8 WB LT 51 7 16.8 8.8 ----------------R
31 4 8.6 8.8 I t'i' 15.5 B.B 21-J' , I I All 92-I I I I I I NB L 31 4 3.2 8.8 39--" I I I I i r TR 71 18 11.5 8.B I I 87 tl38 All 11.1 8.8 I I I I 1819 8B L 181 24 1.B 49.9 1 Jll.. 􀁾􀁟2
Jl:· 3 􀁌􀁾􀁟4...-J TR 121 25 18.5 8.8 Z5 ·:lr2 1 -6l 2 2 --, All 9.2 49.9 12 2 1 18 2 2 5 -Lr Intersect. 18.8 14 2 2
NETSIM Results for Case: LINDEXAM Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8b NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. or Pet. Of Cycles Animation
Max. Q Queue Of Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frame Per Cycle Per That q With Can1t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overt lows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehsJ ALane
Overflow or "on-Turners Queue EB LT 6 7 8.8 6:47 R 1 1 8.8 8:84 WB LT 5 7 8.8 5:19 R 3 4 0.8 8.8 18.2 6:15 NB L 3 4 8.8 8.8 8.8 4:28 TR 7 18 8.8 12:41 SB L 18 24 49.9 98.9 8.8 14:23
TR 12 25 8.8 14:29 *These perfornance Measures are also shown on summary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: LINDEXAn Existing Conditions Lindberg Dr /Midway Road AN Peale Vers ion 3.8& NETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED B.8 B.3 B.B 18.5 5.1 B.8 VB 1.7 8.2 8.8 16.& 9.8 8.8 riB &.5 8.& 8.8 18.1 4.8 8.8 SB 15.3 8.6 8.8 a.8 4.8 8.8 All 24.3 1.6
8.8 9.7 5.8 8.8 RTOR Maneuvers Conpleted 6 41 288 Auto Pollutant 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 􀀨􀁇􀁲􀁡􀁾􀀯􀁍􀁩􀁬􀁥􀁟􀁈􀁯􀁵􀁲􀀩 ----00--------NOX----539.9 &6.9 1559.4 288.8 11836.& 1213.8 22657.2
2768.8 9948.3 lB62.2 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁈􀁃􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂭 39.1 95.5 3&5.3 933.7 338.9 EB VB riB SB AllAverage speed on previDus page 􀁾􀁡􀁹 he overstated since it was necessary to conhine yellow and
all-red intervals
216B I 􀁾􀀳 􀁾􀀷􀁾 III 'LI I 389 I I I oli--125 IJIJI I I I .-lUI HeM 􀁓􀁵􀁮􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results For Case: LIHDCMAM Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Existing Traffic w/CMAQ InprDv. AM Peak Version
3.8& -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L Lane X (secl 0 (secl 0 Grp VIS vIc veh) 􀁾 vehl 􀁾 ED Lper 8.8B 3&.4 D Lpro 8.82 8.141 21.1 C TR *8.11 8.01 38.9 D WD Lper 8.88 14.6 B ----------------Lpro
*8.87 8.3&1 28.& C 21..J T 8.88 8.32 18.7 C 92-II t'It'I R 8.18 8.30 9.9 D I I I 39-" I I I MB Lper 8.85 28.6 C I I i r Lpro 8.85 8.5&1 15.9 C I J TR *8.27 8.03 28.9 C I I 87 hoo I I
UU9 3D Lper 8.88 28.1 C 1 L􀁾􀁟2 JJ:. 3 JJI.. 􀁾􀀭 4--1 Lpro *8.29 1.881 43.7 E 4 l Z6 ·:lr3 r TR 8.47 8.91 15.5 C 3 11 2 2 3 3 5 L & -• L "'== -Int. 8.75 8.00 ze.3 C#L TOTAL -, • r
11 3 5 2 2
Input Data for Case: LINDeMAM Existing Traffic w/CMAQ Inprov. Lindherg Dr IMidway Doad AM Peak Version 3.86 r3 i i 8? tl38 1019 11 2 2 3 I titI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -LI2S
2 216B I j3 􀁾􀀷􀁾 III t...-I I 389 I I I ......-125 IJI JI I I I 􀁾 118 􀀲􀀱􀁾 9239-'1 L􀁾􀁟2 Jj:. 4 l 3 26 ·:lr3 S, L li ----, -=-= . 11 3 --Lane 􀁌􀁥􀁮􀁧􀁴􀁨􀁳􀀭􀀭􀁾 􀁾􀁾 Full L Pkt
R Pkt 1088 108B 125 12S 1008 168 10B8 208 Including Pockets WD ND 3B 344 133 -Pkt Lanes-Left Right o 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Intersection Geonetry l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 Outbound
Street 2 2) ED WB NB 3D 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 6 ED 12.8 12.0 VB 12.8 12.0 12.8 HB 12.812.0 12.8 12.8 3B 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8
NETSIM SUMMary for Case: LINDeMAn Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Existing Traffic w/CMAQ IMprov. AM Peak Version 3.8& Queues Spi Ilback in 21&0 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀁾􀀳 􀁾􀀷􀁾 I Lane
Avg/Max Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak II t.....-App Group (veh) (ll'Iph) Period) I I 389 ---EB L 11 2 14.9 8.8 I I I OIl--125 TH 31 4 12.4 8.B IJIJI I I I r-UB All 12.9 8.8 --------IJB L 11 3 3.7
8.8 --------T 21 5 22.5 8.8 21 ---.J" I t'r R 31 4 7.9 B.B 9Z-I I I All 17.& 8.8 I I I 39--' I I I fiB L 31 5 2.5 8.8 I I i r TR 71 9 12.5 8.8 I I 87 t138 All 11.8 8.8 I I I I 1819 SB
L 191 38 1.9 45.8 1 L􀁾􀁟2 JJ:. 3 JJL 􀁾􀀭 4--1 TR 181 14 12.2 8.8 4 l ·'lr r-AIl 18.5 45.B 3 2& I 3 11 2 2 3 3 S t-& 􀁾 L --;,. 􀁾 --" • r Intersect. 11.5 11 3 S 2 2
NETSIM Resnlts for Case: LINDeMAn Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Existing Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀀮 AM Peak Version 3.8G HETSIM Queue Statistics *Average iEf'lax. *Max. Pct. Pct. Of Pct.
Of Cycles 􀁁􀁮􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮 nax. Q Queue or TiMe Cycles IJhere Turner Frallle Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Dne To Qneue Longest
App Grp (vebs) (vehsl ALane Overflow Of tton-Tnrners Qnene EB L 1 2 8.8 8:35 TH 3 4 8.8 11:31 UB L 1 3 8.8 8.8 8.8 4:49 T Z 5 8.8 8:48 R 3 4 0.8 8.0 0.0 1:51 NB L 3 5 8.8 8.8 8.8 11:31
TH 7 9 8.8 11:32 8B L 19 38 45.8 98.9 8.8 13:55 TR 10 14 0.8 9:26 *These performance 􀁾􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁮􀁲􀁥􀁳 are also shown on swnnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results For Case: LItlDCMAI1 Existing Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀀮 Lindberg Dr IMidway Road AM Peak Version 3.86 NETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel Consufllption -------------Gallons-------
----------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 8.5 8.2 0.8 16.7 7.3 8.0 WB 1.6 8.2 8.8 18.1 8.8 B.B tlB 6.4 8.7 B.8 18.4 4.1 B.B 3D 14.3 8.5 B.8 9.4
4.1 B.B All 22.8 1.6 B.8 1B.4 5.1 B.B Auto Pollutant Enissions RTOR 􀀨􀁇􀁲􀁡􀁾􀁳􀀯􀁍􀁩􀁬􀁥􀁟􀁈􀁯􀁵􀁲􀀩 Maneuvers ----HC------co--------ttIlX----COll1pleted ED 24.0 339.7 42.4 b WD 79.7
1607.7 283.4 36 NB 359.4 11825.8 1197.3 12 3D 885.4 23967.4 2757.1 8 All 317.1 9235.8 1858.1 Average speed on previous page nay he overstated since it was necessary to combine yellow
and all-red intervals
HeN Sunnary Results for Case: LNDAMREC Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic wInther 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁁􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 AM Peak Version 3.8£. -Lane Grp --App -21GB I Delay L Delay L 􀁲􀁾􀀷􀁾
I Lane X (secl 0 (secl 0 I Grp veh) S veh) S vIs vIc I t...-----------I I 389 ED L 8.83 8.15 21.9 C 21.3 C I I I ......-125 T 8.88 0.41 23.5 C IJI JI I I I 􀁾 118 R 8.83 8.18 15.8 C
WB Lper -IEft.8B 13.5 B ---------Lpro -IEft.84 8.581 22.1 C T 8.8B 8.38 19.4 C 21-..J' I tIt J I I I R 8.28 8.35 7.3 B 92-I I I NB Lper -lEft. 32 22.5 C I I I 39---I I i r Lpro 8;81
0.381 21.3 C I J 81 􀁾􀀳􀀸 TR 8.27 8.B4 22.6 C I , I I 1819 SB Lper 8.88 19.8 C 1 JjL 􀁾􀁟2 J!:. 3 L􀁾􀁟4 L Lpro *8.29 8.191 28.3 C -28 ·:11" 2 􀀱􀁾 l r TR 8.47 8.94 18.7 C 13 2 3 Z
4 2 5 --I L -"'"== lnt. 8.12 8.11 19.5 C#L TOTAL "I • 14 3 2
Input Data for Case: LHDAMREC Lindherg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic w;Other Inprovenents AM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection Geonetry 2168 I I 􀁲􀁾􀀷􀁾 I I l)NuNber of Lanes Including
Pockets I I ED WB NO SD I I 'LI I I 389 Approach Street 3 3 4 4 I I I 018---125 Outbound Street 1 1 3 3 I JIJI I I I .-118 2) -PM Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Hight Full L Pkt HPkt -EB
1 0 1088 108 --------WB 1 1 1008 108 158 21-J' IIrIt'I NB 1 0 1008 1GB 92-I I I SB 1 0 180B 208 I I I 39---' I , 3)Heed to Deyise Channelization? H I I i r 87 􀁾􀀳􀀸 I f 4) Lane Widths
(Feet) I I 1019 Median 2 3 4 5 G 1 􀁊􀁊􀁌􀁾􀀭 2 􀁊􀁊􀀺􀁾 3 L􀁾􀁟4 L-EB 12 .8 12.0 12.0 ..-28 r:lr2 􀀱􀁾 l r WB 12.8 12.0 12.0 13 2 3 2 4 2 NB 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 5 I L SD 12.8 12.0 12.0
12.8 --􀁾 -, • 14 3 2
NETSIM SUMMary For Case: LHDAMREC Lindberg Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic w/Other IMproveMents AM Peak Version 3.86 Queues Spi II back in 21G8 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀁲􀁾􀀱􀁾 I Lane
AvglMax Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak II i....-App Group (veh) (Mph) Period) I I 389 ---EB L 11 2 3.2 8.8 I I I .......-125 T 21 4 15.5 B.B I 􀁾 I JI I I I .-11B R 11 2 19.6 8.B All 14.5 8.8 toIB
L 21 4 2.8 8.B ---------T 21 4 21.B B.8 R 31 5 9.B B.B 21-J 'IrIt'I All 16.8 8.8 92-I I I I I I NB L 21 4 5.B B.B 39--" I I i r TH 61 18 12.3 8.8 I I 81 􀁾􀀳􀀸 All 12.1 B.B I I I I 1819
SB L 81 14 3.3 1.9 1 􀁊􀁪􀁬􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁟2 Jj:. 3 L􀁾􀁟4 -L TR 81 11 16.9 B.B 2B ·:lr2 􀀱􀁾 l r-AIl 14.0 7.9 13 2 3 2 4 2 5 --I L -􀁾 Intersect. 14.1 ---, • 14 3 2
NETSIM Results For Case: LNDAMREC Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic w/Other IlIIprovelllents AM Peak Version 3.8& NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average «Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. OF Pet.
Of Cycles Anilllation nax. Q Queue Of tillie Cycles Where Turner Frdl!le Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJt Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overf lows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App
Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue EB L 1 2 0.8 8.8 0.0 0:57 T 2 4 0.8 5:38 H 1 2 0.8 3:52 1m L 2 4 8.8 8.8 8.0 5:19 T 2 4 0.8 B:15 R 3 5 tL8 f}'0 0.8 2:17 NB L 2
4 0.8 8.8 8.0 4:15 TR G 18 0.8 14:82 SB L B 14 7.9 27.3 9.1 5:15 TR 8 11 0.8 14:31 *These perfornance lIIeasures are also shown on sUftl!lary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: LHDAMREC Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic w/Other lrl\proverl\ents AM Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM EnvironNental Statistics Fuel ConsurI\ption -------------Gallons--------
---------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED B.5 B.2 B.B 18.6 7.6 B.B IJB 1.6 8.2 B.B 17.4 9.3 ELB NB 6.2 8.6 B.8 UI.5 4.4 ELB SB 11.2 B.4 B.B 12.2
5.5 8.B All 19.5 1.4 B.8 12.3 5.8 8.B Auto Pollutant ErI\issions RTOR (Grarl\s/Mile-Hour) Maneuvers --HC-----co-----HIlX----COMpleted ED 21.7 323.2 48.5 3 IJB 82.7 1722.4 218.7 22 NB
349.1 18685.1 1168.6 19 SB 625.3 17997.8 2118.7 B All 269.7 7662.1 882.6
t..-453 118 .-149 1....,:----_ *8.15 1.13 154.0 F 140.7 F 8.81 B.82 29.21 HCM 8unnary Results for Case: LINDEXPM Lindherg Dr IMidway Hoad Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.86 -Lane
Grp --App -I 1280 Delay L Delay L I.. I X (seCI 0 (secl 0 J8 p3t : -vI-s -V-Ic -ve-h)-8 -ve-h)-S II I I I I :!:J: Lane Grp EB LT R ItJBLT *8.17 1.16 167.7 F 95.2 F ----------------R
8.38 8.04 47.4 E I 72 -.J' I t'It'I 169-I I I I I I NB Lper 8.44 73.8 F 72-" I J Lpro 8.88 8.131 24.8 C I I i r I I 56 fi91 TR iEfJ.47 1. 88 74.9 F I I I I 1988 SB Lper 8.44 45.2 E 1
Jj:. 2 L!.o_ 3 4 L Lpro *8.24 1.851 95.2 F -1 ..--79 ":tr2 1 -I 371 2 2 􀁾 TR 8.28 8.65 38.4 D 23 2 2 26 2 2 lnt. 1.84 1.12 78.4 F IL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: LIHDEXPM Existing Conditions Lindberg Dr /Midway Road PM Peak Version 3.86 Intersection Geometry 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 ElJ 12.8 12.8 IJB 12.8 12.B
NB 12.8 12.8 12.B 12.8 SD 12.8 12.B 12.B 12.8 i r 51] t191 1988 4 -Lr 2 2 21] 2 2 ItItI I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1288 I j8 􀁾􀀳􀁾 III 'LI I 453 I I I ......-118 IJI!I
I I , .-149 72-.1' 11]972----"1 Jl:. 2 L􀁾􀁟􀁾 79 ":lr2 1 si l 2 2 􀁾 Including Pockets WB NB SD 244 133 l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 Outhound Street 2 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane
Lengths--Left Right Full L Pkt RPkt ED B B IB88 IJB B 1 IB88 125 ND 1 8 1008 168 SD 1 B IB88 288 3)Need to Reyise 􀁃􀁨􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁬􀁩􀁺􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾 N
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 For Case: LIHDEXPn Lindberg Dr IMidway Hoad Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.86 Queues Spillback in I 1288 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane j8 􀁾􀀳􀁾 I Lane Avg/Max
Speed 􀀨􀁾 or Peak I App Group (veh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) I t....----I I 453 EB LT 231 33 2.2 8.8 I I I oli--118 R 11 Z 23.3 8.8 I 􀁾 I JI I I I .-149 All 2.8 8.8 UB LT 151 Z7 3.5 18.8
----------------R 261 35 3.8 24.6 72--.J' 't't' 3.5 24.6 I I I All 169-I I I I I I NB L 21 3 b.4 8.8 7Z--" I I I , i r TR 191 32 7.3 8.8 I I 56 t191 All 7.3 8.8 I I I I 1998 SB L 241
34 1.5 48.4 1 􀁊􀁪􀀺􀁾 2 􀁌􀁾􀁟3 4 -1 -L TR 121 17 8.4 8.8 79 ":ll""z 1 -r 3j l 2 Z 􀁾 7.2 48.4 23 2 2 26 2 Z All Intersect. S.B
N.ETS 1M Resu lts for Case: LIHllEXPtt Lindberg Dr /Midway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.81l NETSIM Queue statistics -tElIverag-e *Max. *Max. Pct. Pct. Of Pet. Of Cycles
Anination ttax. Q Queue Of Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frall'e Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJ t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs)
(yehs) ALane Over/low Of Han-Turners Queue ED LT Z3 33 B.8 14:37 R 1 2 B.8 2:00 IJB LT 15 27 18.8 14:39 R Z6 35 24.6 188.8 188.8 11:11 riB L 2 3 B.8 8.B 08.8 5:28 TR 19 32 B.8 18:00
3B L 24 34 48.4 188.8 28.8 14:13 TR 12 17 0.8 12:19 *These perforNance neasures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results For Case: LIHDEXP" Lindberg Dr /Midway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8& HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel COnsuMption -------------Gallons---------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 3.B B.1 B.8 5.B 3.3 B.B WD 7.1 8.3 B.8 4.6 2.8 B.B NB 14.& 8.4 B.8 7.7 3.7 B.B SD 11.4 8.B B.8 7.5 3.7 B.B All 36.2 1.b B.8
&.B 3.5 8.B Auto Pollutant Enissions RTOR (GraMs/Mile-Hour) Maneuyers --HC------CO-----NOX--CoMpleted EB 14&.3 1780.9 222.3 1B WB 339.3 5778.5 8&6.7 58 NB 76&.7 18595.8 2376.4 2 3D 632.&
1794:7.1 2835.1 1 All 471.2 11825.4 1375.1
i...-453 oIi---118 .-149 ....."....--IIIII I I I I IIIII I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I HeM SUNIary Results for Case: LIHJ)PMl Lindberg Dr !Midway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ Inprovenents PM Peak Version
3.8& -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L Lane X (seCI 0 (secl 0 Grp VIS VIC veh) 􀁾 veh) 􀁾 ED Lper 8.88 &8.9 F Lpro 8.85 9.321 28.7 D Tn 8.15 8.96 71.1 F IJB Lper 8.16 45.1 E --------Lpro
*8.87 8.9?1 76.8 F 􀀿􀀲􀁾 't'i' I I I T 8.87 8.4? 37.8 D 1&9-I I I n *8.38 8.84 35.5 D I I I ?2 ---.. I I NB Lper 8.48 35.2 D I I Lpro 􀀸􀁾􀀸􀀸 8.131 13.1 B I I i r Tn *8.47 1.88 35.?
D I I 5& k91 I I 1988 SB Lper 8.47 28.4 D 1 Jj:. 2 L􀁾􀁟3 4 ---1 L 􀁾 Lpro 8.23 8.991 61.1 F --"'=-= 59 ":11"'2 1 r -251 -"'l • TR 8.28 8.GB IB.7 C 2 2 9 2 1 18 2 2 Int. 8.85 8.91 35
.? DIL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: LINDPMi Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ Inprovenents PM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection Geonetry 1288 I 􀁲􀁾􀀳􀁾 r l)Nunber of Lanes Including Pockets
I ED YO NO SD I 'LI I 453 Approach Street 2 3 4 4 I I I oli---118 Outbound Street 1 1 3 3 I 􀁾 I JI I I I .-149 2) -Pkt Lanes--Lane Lengths--Left Right Fu11 L Pkt RPkt --------EB 8 8
1888 It'r LIB 1 1 UJ88 125 125 12-J I I I 169-I I I NB 1 8 1888 168 I I I SB 1 8 1888 208 12--" I I I I 3)Need to Reyise Channelization? N I I i r I I 5& t191 4) Lane Widths (Feet) I
I 1988 Median Z 3 4 5 6 1 JJ:. 2 L􀁾􀁟3 4 ---T 􀁾 LED 12.8 12.8 59 ":lr2 1 r -􀁾 zsl 􀁾 • YB 12.8 12.8 12.8 Z 2 9 Z 1 18 Z Z NO 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 8B 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETS 1M SUMlI'ary for Case: LINIlPMl Lindherg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ IlI'provell'ents PM Peak Version 3.86 Queues Spillback in 1288 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane jB 􀁾􀀳􀁾
I Lane 􀁁􀁶􀁧􀀯􀁍􀁡􀁾 Speed (Yo of Peak II t-App Group (wh) (lI'ph) Period) I I 453 ---EB L 21 4 18.4 ILB I I I 4--11B TR 121 16 4.B 8.8 I JI!I I I I 􀁾 149 All 5.6 8.B --------UB L
41 6 2.1 5.& T 31 7 18.5 8.B 􀀷􀁚􀁾 It'tI I I I R 71 11 4.4 8.8 169-I I I All 12.2 5.6 III 7Z--" I I NB L 11 2 11.5 B.B I I 1 r TR 121 24 11.5 8.8 I I All 11.5 8.B 56 t191 I I I I 1988
3B L 211 29 1.6 51.1 1 J!:. 2 3 4 ---1 L 􀁾 ----=-= TR 81 13 18.7 8.8 59 ":lr2 1 r --25l 􀁾 • All 8.B 51.1 2 Z 9 2 1 18 2 2 Intersect. 9.9
NETSIM Hesults for Case: LIHDPM1 Lindberg Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ I.,.provell'ents PM Peak Version 3.8D HETSIM Queue Statistics *Average *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pet.
Of CycLes Ani.,.ation Max. Q Queue Of Tillie Cycles Where Turner Fral'l'e Per Cycle Per That Q Uith Can't Enter 􀁂􀁡􀁾 Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest
App Grp (vehs) (yells) ALane Overf low Of Hon-Turners queue ED L 2 4 8.8 18:4G TH 12 1G 8.8 13:12 IJB L 4 G 5.6 14.3 42.9 2:14 T 3 ? 8.8 13:88 R 7 11 0.8 57.1 28.6 14:47 NB L 1 2 8.8
fL8 28.6 4:21 TH 12 24 8.8 18:87 SD L 21 29 51.1 188.8 8.8 6:2G TR 8 13 0.8 11:23 *These performance measures are also shown on 􀁳􀁵􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 statistics screen
NETSIM Hesults For Case: LINIlPMl Lindberg Dr /Midway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.8& NETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons--
---------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 1.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 19.2 EL8 WB 2.9 ELl 8.8 13.9 13.6 B.8 NB 18.8 8.4 8.8 18.6 4.4 B.8 SB 18.2 8.7
8.8 8.4 3.9 B.8 All 25.9 1.2 8.8 18.8 4.9 B.8 Auto Pollutant 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 RTOR (GraMs/Mile-Hour) Maneuvers --.,.HC--------co--------HDX----CoMpleted EB 91.3 1288.7 159.1 8 WB 15lL8
2783.8 37B.l 78 NB 587.3 15688.7 1886.1 7 SB 572.4 17229.4 1895.1 1 All 350.2 9287.4 1877.6
i r 56 t191 1988 L 4--.J 􀁾 r •24 3 Z ItItI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -􀀱􀁾􀁬􀀳􀀲􀀱􀁩 2-1288 I j8 􀁾􀀳􀁾 III t..-.-I I 453 I I I of---118 I JIJI I I I .-149 72-J' 16972'" 38,4
D 28.7 C 1 Jj:.. 45 "IIll""2 22.1 C Hen Sunnary Results for Case: LHDPMDEC Lindherg Dr /Midway Road Exist. Traffic wIOther Improvenents PM Peak Version 3.8D -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay
L Lane X (seCI 0 (seCI 0 Grp vIs vIc veh) 􀁾 veh) 􀁾 ED Lper 8.18 34.9 D Lpro 8.88 8.381 24.6 C T 8.18 8.85 46.6 E R 8.85 8.13 15.4 C WB Lper 8.12 Lpro *8.80 8.781 33.2 D T 8.87 8.59
31.2 D R *8.29 8.8529.1 D MB Lper 8.37 Lpro 8.88 8.131 8.3 B TR 8.48 8.97 22.5 C S:8 Lper *9.49 Lpro 8.22 8.981 48.1 E Tn 8.28 0.58 12.7 B Int. 8.84 0.98 23.5 C IL TOrAL
Input Data for Case: LNDPMREC Lindberg Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic w/Other 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.06 L.. 4S3 118 .-149 '-r-_ IIIII I I I I IIII1 I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I 1288
Including Pockets 􀁾􀀸 􀁾􀀳􀁾 WB NB 8B 344 1 3 3 􀁬􀀩􀁎􀁵􀁾􀁢􀁥􀁲 of Lanes EB Approach street 3 Outbound street 1 Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 2) -Pkt Lanes--Lane Lengths-Left Hight
Full L Pkt HPkt -ED 1 0 1008 108 --------WB 1 1 1008 108 158 72-J Irr I I I ND 1 0 1088 168 169-I I I 8D 1 0 1008 208 I I I 72 .... I I i r 3)Heed to Reyise Channelization? H I I I I
S6 k91 4) Lane Widths (Feet) I I 1988 Median 2 3 4 5 6 1 JJ:. 2 3 4 ED 12.8 12.0 12.0 --􀁾 L .-.J 􀁾 45 ,o:lr2 -r 15 l ---"l • WB 12 .8 12.0 12.0 3 2 12 2 4 3 2 ND 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8
8D 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: LHDPMREC Lindberg Dr tMidway Doad Exist. TraFfic w/Other 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁄􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peal< Uersion 3.86 Queues Spi llhack in 1288 I Per Lane Avg Worst
Lane j8 􀁾􀀳􀁾 I Lane AvgtMax Speed (Yo of Peak II 't-App Group (veh) (lIlph) Period) I I ---EB L 2/4 2.6 8.8 I I I 04-T 6/8 9.2 8.8 I JI JI I I I r-H 1/2 21.1 8.8 All 9.6 B.8 WB L 5/18
1.8 16,2 ---------T 3/6 19,2 8,8 n 6/lB 5,8 B,B 72.:.J IItI'rI All 11.4 16.2 169-I I I I I I NB L 8/3 10.9 8,8 72 .... I I i r Tn 6/12 17.2 8,8 I I All 17,2 8,8 I I 56 h91 I I 1988 SB
L 24/35 1.4 57.9 1 JJL 2 L􀁾􀁟3 L .. 4----=-= --.J TR 7/13 UL2 8,8 45 ":1r2 -r lsl 􀁾 • All 8.4 57,9 3 2 12 2 4 3 2 Intersect, 11,6
NETSIM Results for Case: LNDPMREC Lindberg Dr IMidway Road Exist. Traffic w/Other lnprovenents PM Peak Version 3.8£. NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average iEMax. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pet. Of
Cycles Anination Max. Q Queue Of TiNe Cycles Where Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJt Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overt lows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs)
(vehs) ALane Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue EB L 2 4 0.8 B.0 40.0 3:34 T 6 8 0.8 2:18 R 1 2 0.8 􀀰􀀺􀁾􀁕 !JB L 5 18 16.2 5B.0 0.0 14:88 T 3 6 8.8 13:42 R 6 HI 0.8 B.B 10.0 14:51 NB L
8 3 tL8 B.0 0.0 4:45 TR 6 12 8.8 18:12 SB L 24 35 57.9 9B.0 0.0 9:16 TR 7 13 B.8 9:39 *These perfornance neasures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: LHDPMREC Lindherg Dr IMidway Hoad Exist. Traffic w/Other 􀁬􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁄􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.06 NETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁵􀁾􀁰􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮
-------------Gallons-----------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 1.3 O.B 0.B 13.1 9.3 B.0 WB 3.1 0.1 B.O 13.1 13.9 B.B fiB B.6 0.3 B.O 13.4
4.8 B.B 8B 10.3 0.8 B.O 8.3 3.3 B.B All 23.2 1.3 8.0 11.1 4.5 B.8 Auto Pollutant 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 RTOR CGraMSlMile-Hour) Maneuvers ---HC-------co-----ttllX----CoMpleted EB 62.2 940.9
119.2 11 WB 16B.B 3102.3 401.B 68 NB 468.7 13382.2 1572.5 5 8B 568.9 16565.1i IB48.8 2 All 314.9 9477.9 995.4
HCM 3unMary Results for Case: PROTEXAM ProtDn Drive/Midway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp --App -I Delay L Delay L 2272 I 􀁲􀁾􀁾 I Lane X (sec! 0 (secl 0 I Grp
-V-!S -V!-C -ve-h)-3 -ve-h)-S I t.....-EB LT *8.18 8.ft4 23.9 C 23.5 C I 43 I I I ......-21 R 8.17 0.GB 28.1 C IJ'JI I I I 􀁾 1ft --------IJB LTH B.84 0.15 18.ft C 18.ft C 9B-J II rIt'I
Iftl-I I I I I NB Lper B.BB 22.1 C 24B--" I I Lpro *8.83 0.181 12.5 E I I i r I I TH B.29 0.83 22.4 C 43 t14 I I I I 1299 3B Lper B.8B 17.ft C 1 L 2 .:JL 3 T 4 .1 I .. o! 􀁾--Lpro B.16
0.581 11.5 B 􀁾 -=-= 9l ·'1'" -I TR 48.49 0.94 18.3 C 2 1 13 2 1 29 113 2 23 3 2 Int. B.7B 0.77 19.ft C #L TOTAL
'L-43 21 .-11i 't'r I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 r I I 43 t 14 I I I I 1299 3 T 4 .1 I .. 􀁾 􀁾 --.'1 􀁾 "'=""= 1" . I 2 1 29 113 2 23 3 2 2272 Including Pockets 􀁾􀀶 􀁾􀀷􀁾 IJB NB 3B 244
133 Input Data for Case: PROTEXAM Existing Conditions Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 l)NuMber of Lanes EB Approach Street 2 Outbound Street 1 2) -PM Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Hight Full
L Pkt HPM EB 0 1 608 88 WB 0 0 608 98---J' riB 1 8 1088 85 llil-3B 1 0 1008 108 248 .. 3)Need to Reyise Channelization? N 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 6 1 L 2 .:jL EB 12.8 12.0
IJ.B 12.8 12.8 9l 2 1 13 riB 12.8 12.8 12.0 12.8 3B 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8
NETSIM SUMMary for Case: PHOTEXA" Existing Conditions Proton DrivetMidway Road AM Peak Version 3.86 I 2272 I 􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀷􀁾 III 'LI 43 I r I of--21 IJI JI I I I .-Ui --------Queues Spillback
in Per Lane AYg Worst Lane Lane AVY/Max Speed (x of Peak App Group (veh) (Mph) Period) -----ED LT 61 8 lB.3 8.8 R 51 7 1.B 13.9 All 7.8 13.9 NB L 11 2 5.1 IL8 TR BI 9 11.9 8.8 All 11.8
8.8 SB L 91 11 2.4 22.2 TR BI 12 15.7 8.8 All 14.7 22.2 Intersect. 12.8 98 ----t' 'It'IrI Hil-I I r I I 248--" I I I I i r I I 43 t14 I I I I 1299 1 L 2 .:JL 3 T 4 .1 I. I I --::-::t"
--=-= 9l .111• • 2 1 13 2 1 29 II 3 2 23 3 2 8.8 8.8 11 2 lB.4 UL4 WB LTR All
NETSIM Results ror Case: PRnTEXAM ProtDn Driye/Midway Road Existing Conditions AM Peak Version 3.8& HETSIM Queue Statistics iE{lyerage *Max. *Max. Pet. Pet. Of Pct. Of Cycles Anil"atiDn
Max. Q Queue Dr TiMe Cycles Uhere Turner FraMe Per Cycle Per That Q With Can}t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane
Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue EB LT 6 8 8.8 9:34 R 5 7 13.9 3B.B 68.B 12:25 WB LTR 1 2 8.8 B:38 NB L 1 2 lL8 B.B 8.8 9:45 TR 8 9 8.8 8:23 SB L 9 11 22.2 7B.8 38.B 3:56 TR 8 12 0.8 7:14
*These perforMance Measures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: PRDTEXA" Existing Conditions Proton Drive/Midway Hoad AM Peak Version 􀀳􀀮􀀸􀁾 HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics rue I ConsUMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Mi
les Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 1.5 8.8 8.8 18.3 7.4 8.0 IJB 8.2 8.8 8.8 15.2 8.8 B.8 NB &.4 8.5 8.8 18.7 4.2 EL8 SB 11.8 8.5 8.8 11.0 4.3 EL8 All 19.1
1.8 8.8 11.3 4.4 EL8 Auto Pollutant EMissions RTOR (GraMs/Mile-Hour) Maneuvers ----HC--------co--------HOX----COMpleted EB 126.8 2185.0 381.1 8 IJB 17.5 238.8 29.1 8 NB 3&4.4 11843.4
1107.8 8 SB 􀁾􀀱􀀴􀀮􀀲 10249.3 2187.9 8 All 332.9 9593.4 1891.8
2272 I 􀁾􀁌 􀁾􀀿􀁾 IIII 'L.. I I 43 I I I ..-21 IIIJI 16 I I I .---------Lane HeM 􀀸􀁵􀁾􀁍􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results for Case: PROTAMQ ProtDn Drive/Midway Road Exist. TraFfic wlCMAQ 􀁛􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳
AM Peak Version 3.86 -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L X (secl 0 (sec/0 -V-Is -VI-C -ve-h)-S -ve-h)-S 􀁾􀀮􀁉􀁂 B.72 23.8 C 16.7 C 8.1B 0.2G 18.7 B Grp EB LT n WBL 8.85 B.19 16.1 C 16.1
C --------TR 8.B5 B.21 16.1 C 􀀹􀁂􀁾 It't' I I I NB Lper 8.15 19.6 C 161-I I I I I i r Lpro iEfI.8fl 6.151 18.5 C 24B-" I I Tn 8.29 B.87 19.6 C I I 43 t14 I I 1299 SB Lper 8.8B 15.8
C 1 L • 2 JJL 3 JJ:. 4 L Lpro 8.16 B.451 12.8 B -"'=-= Z3 r:1r 2 1 􀁾 • 􀀭􀁾 l 3 2 Tn *ti.49 B. 96 1£1.1 C 15 3 2 lB 2 1 [nt. 8.67 B.?? 17.1 C IL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: PROTAMQ Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 Proton Drive/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.8& i i 43 t14 WJ9 I tit I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2272 I jL
􀁾􀀷􀁾 I,II t...-I I 43 I I I 4----21 I JI JI I I I r-1& --------9B--..J' 1&124B ---.. -Lane Lengths-_----Full L Pkt H Pkt------=-18B8 188 18B8 IBB8 158 IBB8 208 Including Pockets UD
ND SD 244 133 -Pkt Lanes-Left Right o 1 o 0 1 0 1 0 Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 I)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 3 Outbound Street 1 EB IJB NB 3D 2) 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median
2 3 4 5 6 1 • L-2 JJL ED 12.8 12.0 12.8 -􀁾 --, t UD 12.8 12.0 15 3 2 10 2 1 NB 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 SD 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N
NETSIM 􀀸􀁵􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: PROTAMQ ProtDn Drive/Midway Road Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁛􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 AM Peak Version 3.8b Queues Spillhack in 2272 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane
􀁾􀀶 􀁩􀀷􀁾 I Lane Avg/Max Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak II App Group (veh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) I ---'L.-EB LT 7/8 UL2 8.8 I I 43 I I I 4--21 R 1/Z 19.3 1:1. 6 I jI JI All 12.8 8.8 I I I 􀁾 1Ii
--------WB L 1/2 11.4 8.8 --------TR 1/2 2lL6 8.8 All 17.5 B.B 9B-J' I t'r I I I 1Iil-I I I NB L 01 1 9.7 8.B I I i r TR 71 9 12.5 8.8 248 ---.. I I All 12.5 8.B 43 t14 I I I I 1299
SB L III 9 3.7 8.B 1 L • 2 JJL 3 JJ:. 4 L TR 71 14 16.4 8.8 -􀁾 23 r:lr2 1 -, • -6l 3 Z All 15.1 6.6 15 3 2 10 2 1 Intersect. 14.8
NETSlM Results for Case: PHDTAMQ Proton Drive/Midway Road Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ llltprovelltents AM Peak Version 3.8& HETSlM Queue Statistics iE/lverage oIEf1ax. *I1ax. Pet. Pet. Of
Pet. Of Cycles Anilltation Max. Q Queue Of Tillie Cycles Uhere Turner Frane Per Cycle Per That Q Yith CanJ t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest
App Grp (vehs) (vehsl ALane Overflow Of Hon-Turners Queue EB LT 7 B 8.8 1:53 R 1 2 8.8 8.8 8.8 14:13 UB L 1 2 8.8 B:39 TR 1 2 B.8 13:29 HE L 8 1 8.8 8.8 B.B 4:18 TR 7 9 8.8 6:3& SB L
6 9 8.8 8.8 B.B 3:57 TR 7 14 0.8 1:13 *These perforlTlance Ilteasures are also shown on sUIltlltary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: PRDTAMQ Exist. Traffic w/CMAQ 􀁛􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁄􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 Proton Drive/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.8b HETSIM 􀁅􀁮􀁶􀁩􀁲􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁡􀁬 Statistics Fuel ConsuMption
-------------Gallons-----------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 1.6 8.8 8.8 1£1.8 12.3 B.8 1m B.2 8.8 B.B 21.2 B.B 8.0 NB 1l.3 8.4 B.8 1B.9
4.5 8.B SB 18.5 8.4 B.8 12.4 5.7 8.B All lB.7 B.8 0.8 12.3 5.4 8.0 Auto Pollutant 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 RTOR (GraMS/Mile-Hour) Maneuvers ----HC---------co--------HOX----COMpleted ED 76.9
1186.7 158.7 13 1m 11.5 138.5 2B.5 1B NB 358.3 18918.7 1173.9 0 SB 586.6 1b8B6.? 19118.6 8 All 258.3 7242.7 928.4
I 2272 I 􀁾􀀦 􀁾􀀷􀁾 III 'LI I 43 I I I ..--21 IIIJI I I I r-16 --------Lane Hen SumMary Results for Case: PROTAM1 Proton Drive/Midway Road Existing Traffic w/new phasing AM Peak Version
3.8& -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L X (sec/0 (sec/0 -vI-s -vI-c -ve-h)-8 -ve-h)-8 *8.1& B.49 19.3 C 17.2 C B.17 0.42 15.8 C Grp ED LT R 98---3' 16121.1 C 248 ---.. 2 1 1299 i r 43 t14
I titI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JJL 3 JJ:. 􀁾 1 -----,y "I 􀁾 2 1 31 I r2 2 13 L􀁾•22 ----, 12 5 I 16.6 C 1 L􀁾􀁟2 􀀭􀁾 l 2 1 13 Int. 8.68 0.75 18.2 C IL TOTAL WB LT 8.84
0.2B 26.3 D 23.7 C H 8.84 0.16 21.5 C ME Lper 8.88 Lpro *8.83 0.291 13.8 B TH 8.29 0.B1 21.3 C 3B Lper 8.88 Lpro 8.16 0.611 14.2 B TR -8.49 0.92 16.8 C
2 1 i r 43 t14 'L 43 21 􀁾 16 't IfI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1299 L􀁾• 2 2 1 L􀁾􀁟2 JjL 3 Jj:. 􀁾 -4l 2 1 13 2 1 31 r:lr2 2 􀁾 ----, 12 5 I Including Pockets WD NB 8B 244
133 Input Data for Case: PROTAM1 Existing Traffic WI new phasing Intersection 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁹 1)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 Outbound Street 1 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left
Hig-ht Full L Pkt HPkt ED 0 1 6B8 1B8 IJB 0 B 6B8 􀀹􀀸􀁾 NB 1 0 10BB 175 161-8B 1 0 100B 25B 248--" 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 S 6 ED 12.8 12.0 IJB 12.8 12.B NB 12.8 12.0 12.0
12.8 8B 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.8 3)Heed to Reyisc Channelization? H
HETSIM 􀁓􀁕􀁍􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 for Case: PHOTAMI ProtDn Drive/Midway Road Existing Traffic w/new phasing AM Peak Version 3.8& Queues Spi llback in I 2272 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀁲􀁰􀁾 I Lane
􀁁􀁶􀁾􀀯􀁍􀁡􀁸 Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak I App Group (yeh) 􀀨􀁾􀁰􀁨􀀩 Period) I L----I I 1:3 EB LT 6/0 12.2 8.8 I I I .of-21 R 3/6 3.6 1.2 IJI!I I I I .-Hi All UL2 1.2 --------WB LT 1/3 8.£.
8.8 R 1/2 9.0 8.8 98---J' I Itlr All 9.2 B.B I I I I 1£.1-I I I I I I I I NB L 1/2 G.9 8.8 248 ---.. I I I I I I i r TIl 7/9 12.6 8.8 I I I 43 t14 All 12.6 B.8 I I I I I I 1299 SB L
8/11 4.8 8.8 1 L􀁾􀁟2 JJL 3 JJL 4---1 TIl 6/1B 18.6 8.8 􀀭􀁾 1 2 1 31 􀁾􀀺􀁫􀀲 2 􀁾 All 16.6 B.B 13 2 1 13 2 1 5 I L -􀁾 Intersect. 14.3 ..., 4 12 2 2
HETSIM Results For Case: PROTAM1 Proton Drive/Midway Hoad Existing Traffic w/new phasing AM Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM Queue Statistics *Average *Max. 􀁾􀁡􀁸􀀮 Pet. Pet. Of Pet. Of Cycles
Anination Max. Q Queue OF Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frane Per O}cle Per That €I "lith Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs)
(vehs) ALane Overflow Of Han-Turners Queue EB LT 6 B 0.8 14:83 R 3 6 1.2 10.0 30.0 2:81 WB LT 1 3 0.8 12:42 R 1 2 0.B 0:38 HB L 1 2 0.8 0.0 0.0 9:46 TH 7 9 0.8 5:17 SB L 8 11 0.8 0.0
0.0 3:52 TR {) 18 0.8 7:15 *These perforMance neasures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results for Case: PROTAM1 Existing Traffic w/new phasing Proton Drive/Midway Road AM Peak Version 3.8b HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons--------------------
---Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED 1.2 8.8 0.8 12.5 12.7 B.0 YB B.2 8.8 8.8 14.1 8.8 8.8 NB 6.4 8.4 8.8 18.7 4.4 8.8 SB 9.8 8.4 8.8 13.1 5.9 8.8 All
17.1 8.9 8.8 12.2 5.4 8.8 RTOR Maneuyers COMpleted 888o Auto Pollutant 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁄􀁮􀁳 (GranslMile-Hour) ----CO--------HOX----1884.5 257.5 283.9 27.1 11191.9 1222.8 1&488.3 1858.8
9024.1 1816.1 ----HC---185.0 18.5 363.0 551.4 389.9 ED YD NB SD AllAverage speed on previous page May be overstated since it was necessary to COMbine yellow and all-red interyals
L-308 171 r-63 Lane HeM 􀁓􀁵􀁮􀁮􀁡􀁲􀁾 Results For Case: PROTEXPM Proton Drive/Midway Road Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.86 -Lane Grp --App -I 1692 Delay L Delay L 1 I X (seCI
0 (sect 0 􀁾􀀳 Bt : Grp _V_I_S _V_I_C _y_eh_) 􀁾 _v_eh_> 􀁾 I EB LT *8.44 1.84 93.2 F 66.9 F II I I H 8.958.13 15.9 B I II II I 􀁾􀀬􀁾 I WB LTR B.22 8.52 18.5 C 18.5 C rt' 187 --.J'
I I , 26-I I I I I riB Lper B.BEt 28.6 D 􀀷􀀷􀁾 I I Lpro 6.B8 tLfifil 18.9 C I I i i I I TR *8.46 8.98 29.1 D 126 t23 I I I I 21B5 SB Lper B.21 35.4 D 1 L 2 3 Jj:. 4 • L Lpro *8.B4 8.?5B
3B.6 D 3 l1r2 1 43 r:lr3 2 ---=-= 41 􀁾 • TH 8.41 0.99 35.6 D 2 1 44 3 2 Int. B.93 1.81 31.8 DIL TOTAL
L 􀁾•32 'L 388 171 r-G3 2185 1 r 126 t23 II tI'tII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 L 2 3 JJ:. :.= 4 1 2 1 3 11r2 1 43 r:lr3 2 :r Including Pockets WB HB 3B 2 4 4 1 3 3 Input Data for
Case: PROTEXPM Existing Conditions Intersection Geonetry I)HuMber of Lanes EB ApproacJl Street 2 Outbound Street 1 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Rig-}It Full L Pkt HPkt Ell 0 1
G8B 88 IJB 0 0 G68 􀀱􀀸􀀷􀁾 NB 1 8 1868 85 26-SB 1 8 1888 18B 17-" 3)Need to Reyise Channelization? N 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 (; ED 12.8 12.8 IJB 12.8 12.8 NB 12.8 12.8
12.8 12.8 SB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETS]M Results for Case: PROTEXPM Existing Conditions Proton Drive/Midway Road PM Peak Version 3.86 I 1692 I j3 )8t III t.-I 388 I I I ......-171 I jI JI I J I r-63 --------187.J' I,'fi,rI
26-I , I , I SiMulation results indicate that 77-' I I the peak period traffic noveMents I r i r , I identified by X are oversaturated 126 t23 I I and cannot be serviced I I 2185 Approach
Left Thru Right 1 L 2 3 Jj:. 4 ----• L 3 llr2 1 43 ·:lr3 2 ---=-= 4l 􀁾 • 2 1 44 3 2 SB x
NETSIM SUMMary for Case: 􀁐􀁒􀁏􀁔􀁅􀁘􀁐􀁾 Proton DrivelMidway Hoad Existing Conditions PM Peak Version 3.86 Queues Spillback in I 1692 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀁾􀀳 J􀁯􀁾 I Lane Avg/Max
Speed 􀀨􀁾 of Peak I App Group (yeh) (Mph) Period) I L.. ---I 308 EB Lf 41 5 10.8 8.8 I I I ......-171 R 11 3 7.7 8.8 I JI JI I I I .-63 All 10.5 8.8 --------WB LTH 51 18 11.5 8.8 All
11.5 8.8 187 --1" It't' I I I 26-I I I I I NB L 91 12 0.8 4B.7 77 ---.. I I I I i r T:R 16/29 8.8 8.8 I I All 7.£. 48.7 12£. tZ3 I I I I 2185 SB L 14/28 0.5 72.9 1 L 2 3 JJ:. 4 􀁾 L
311r2 1 43 r:lr3 2 TR 201 43 5.3 8.8 41 --=-= ----r • 5.8 2 1 44 3 2 All 72.9 Intersect. 6.5
NETSIM Results for Case: PRDTEXPM Proton Drive/Midway RoadExisting Conditions PM Peak Version 3.8& NETSIM Queue Statistics 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥 oIEMax. *Max. Pet. Pct. or Pet. Of Cycles AniAation Max. Q Queue or Tillie Cycles Where Turner Frdllle
Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJt Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (veIlS) (yehs) ALane Overflow Of Hon-Turners Queue EB LT 4 5 8.8 5:14
R 1 3 8.8 8.8 8.8 18:31i IJB LTR 5 18 8.8 1:31 NB L 9 12 48.7 75.8 25.8 3:38 TR 16 29 8.8 9:47 SB L 14 28 72.9 188.8 37.5 11:82 TR 20 43 0.8 14:56 *Tllese perforl'llance fI1easures are
also shown on sUIIIll"lary statistics screen
NETSIM Hesults For Case: PROTEXPM Existing Conditions Proton DrivelMidway Hoad PM Peak Version 3.8& HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel ConsuMption -------------Gallons-----------------------Miles
Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB 8.5 8.8 B.8 14.2 8.3 B.B 'alB 1.3 8.8 8.8 14.8 9.5 a.B NB 14.7 8.4 8.8 7.6 3.4 a.8 SB 15.a 8.5 8.8 &.8 3.8 a.a All 31.5 1.8
8.8 7.2 3.6 EL8 Auto Pollutant Emissions RTOR (GraMs/Mile-Hour) Maneuvers ----HC---------eo--------HDX----Colllpleted EB 43.9 625.8 89.7 9 'alB 187.8 1832.9 238.3 11 NB 787.8 28743.9
2561:'.1 8 SB 781.2 18298.3 2243.8 4 All 518.6 12659.1 15ft2.4
1&92 I 􀁲􀁊􀁄􀁾 IIII 't...-I I 388 I I I of---171 IJIJ I 63 I r I 􀁾 --------Lane HeM 􀀸􀁵􀁾􀁍􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results for Case: PROTPMQ Proton Drive/Midway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁍􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳
PM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp --App Delay L Delay L X (secl 0 (sec/0 -vI-s -vI-C -ve-h)-S -ve-h)-S 8.13 8.44 23.4 C 21.& C 8.82 9.87 17.2 C Grp EB LT n 2 JJ:. 3 L 􀁾 3 IIr2 1 44 ·:1r2
1 -􀁾 l 2 2 =r -[nt . 8.82 8.98 29 .8 DIL TOTAL Z5 2 1 2185 i r 126 r23 IrItI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -Lr22 1 5 2 L 6 "'== • 18?.J 2677-"S f 52.& 􀁅􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 24.7 C 38.4 D 1 UB
Lper 8.87 Lpro 8.88 8.111 19.5 C TR *8.32 1.88 56.9 E NB Lper 8.88 Lpro *8.88 􀀰􀀮􀀵􀀸􀁾 31.6 D TR 8.46 8.9& 24.3 C 8B Lper *8.42 Lpro 8.82 8.581 35.9 D TA 8.41 0.97 38.1 D
Input Data for Case: PROTPMQ Proton Drive/Midway Hoad Exist. Traffic wI CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.8& 2 Jj:. 3 L 􀁾 3 11r2 1 44 y:lr2 1 􀀭􀁾 1 2 Z =r 2 1 t..-. 389
+----171 .-63 2185 i r 126 t23 I titI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -Lr2 2 I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I IIIII I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I 1692 􀁾􀀳 J􀀸􀁾 L 6 -=•-= 215 􀁉􀁂􀀿􀁾 2677-"15 -• --, Z5 --Lane
Lengths-_----Full L Pkt H Pkt --------,.... 688 108 688 18B8 158 1888 288 Including Pockets IJD ND 3B 244 133 -Pkt Lanes-Left Right 8 1 8 8 1 8 1 8 Intersection Geonetry l)NuMber of
Lanes ED Approach Street 3 Outbound street 1 2) EB IJB NB 3B 3)Heed to Heyise Channelization? H 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 6 EB 12.8 12.8 12.8 IJB 12.8 12.0 NB 12.8 12.8 12.8
12.8 3B 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETS 1M Smunary For Case: PROTPMQ Proton DrivelMidway Hoad Exist. TraFFic w/CMAQ 􀁉􀁮􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.8& Queues Spi Ilback in 1692 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane 􀁾􀀳
J􀀸􀁾 I Lane Avg/Max Speed (x of Peak II App Group (veh) (nph) ---Period) I 'L-ED LI 41 G 6.8 8.8 I I 388 I I I ......-171 R 11 1 17.4 8.8 III JI All 8.9 8.8 I I I 􀁾 63 --------IJB
L 11 3 18.5 8.8 --------TR 21/28 3.3 2.8 All 3.5 2.8 􀀱􀀸􀀷􀁾 II t'I t'I 26-I I I tiD L 41 9 1.8 8.9 I I i r TR 71 12 17.3 8.8 77--" I I 126 t23 All 15.9 8.9 I I I I 2185 3D L ' 61 18
1.4 8.8 1 2 Jl:· 3 L 4---.1 TR 12/15 12.2 8.8 3111"'2 1 44 ":lr2 1 -􀀭􀁾 1 2 2 􀁾 8.8 3 2 1 All 18.9 5 6 I L L -􀁾 --􀁾 • r Intersect. 18.9 25 2 1 5 2 2
NETSIM Results for Case: PHoTPMQ Proton Drive/Midway Doad Exist. Traffic wi CMAQ IMprOVell\ents PM Peak Version 3.Bb NETSIM Queue Statistics *"verage *Max. *Max. Pct. Pct. 01 Pet. Of
Cycles AniMation Max. Q Queue Of TiMe Cycles Where Turner Frallte Per Cycle Per That Q With CanJt Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs)
(....ehs) ALane Overflow Of "on-Turners Queue EB LT 4 & 8.8 6:19 R 1 1 8.8 B.8 8.8 4:12 WB L 1 3 8.8 9:23 TR 21 28 2.8 13:39 HB L 4 9 8.43 11.1 8.8 1:83 TR 7 12 8.8 14:33 SB L 6 18 8.8
B.8 33.3 11:2& TR 12 15 8.8 12:11 *These perforMance Measures are also shown on sUMary statistics screen
NETSIM Results For Case: PROTPMQ Proton Drive/Midway Road Exist. Traffic WI CMAQ 􀁊􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 PM Peak Version 3.8& HETSJM EnvironMental Statistics Fuel COnsuMption -------------Gallons---
--------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED B.G B.B 9.B t2.G 9.G B.0 WB 3.2 8.1 8.8 5.3 3.1 8.8 NB 9.5 8.3 8.8 12.5 5.& 8.8 SB 9.9 8.4 8.8 18.1
4.1 8.8 All 23.3 8.9 8.8 18.5 4.5 8.8 RTOD Maneuvers COMpleted 5 􀁾88 Auto Pollutant 􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳 (GraMs/Mile-Hour) ----00--------"OX----684.2 98.6 4856.6 555.1 15817.9 1818.9 16988.1
1819.7 11082.B 1259.6 ----HC----49.7 25&.5 529.4 563.5 399.0 Average speed on previous page nay he overstated since it was necessary to combine yellow and all-red intervals
HeM 􀁓􀁵􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results for Case: PROTPM1 ProtDn DrivelMidway Road Existing Traffic wI new phasing PM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp --App -I I Delay L Delay L 1692 I I J3 J􀀸􀁾 I I
Lane X (sec! 0 (secl 0 I I Grp -V!-S -V!-C -ve-h)-8 -ve-h)-8 I J t.....-. EB LT 8.13 0.68 26.3 D 23.6 C I I I 388 I I I of--111 R 8.84 0.12 113.2 C IJI!I I I I .-63 WB LT *8.15 0.61
24.8 C 23.8 C 8 8.22 0.18 23.6 C Irr 181..J I I I 26-I I I I I I NB Lper 8.88 21.1 C 11--' I I Lpro *B.BS 8.52B 26.5 D I I i r I I T8 8.46 0.96 20.8 C I I 12G t23 I I 2185 SB Lper *8.43
23.2 C 1 2 J!:. 3 L􀁾􀁟4-! Lpro 8.81 0.53B 28.4 D -i 11r2 39 +:lr2 -41 -􀁾 TR 8.41 0.94 22.9 C 2 2 8 2 5 L G ---• -== -LInt. 8.66 8.14 Z2.3 C ttL TOfAL 1 • r 10 2 9 2 2
2 t....-388 171 .-63 2185 i r 12f1 tZ3 It 'tI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -Lr9 2 Z 1692 Including Pockets 􀁲􀁊􀁾 WD NO SB 2 4 oIJ 133 Input Data for Case: PROTPMl Existing
Traffic wI new phasing Intersection Geonetry l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 Outbound Street 1 2) -Pkt Lanes---Lane Lengths--Left Right Full L Pkt H PM ED 0 1 688 108 WB 0 8 688
187-J NB 1 8 1888 175 26-SB 1 8 1008 258 77-' 3)Need to Revise Channelization? N 4) Lane Widths (Feet) tledian 2 3 4 5 6 1 EB 12.8 12.8 WB 12.8 12.8 -i l1r2 NlJ 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 5
L , SB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 -􀁾 ---, • 18 2
N.ETSIM SUlIllllary for Case: PROTPMl ProtDn DrivelMidway Road Existing Traffic wI new phasing PM Peak Version 3.B£" Queues Spi llback in I 1692 I Per Lane Ayg Worst Lane 􀁾􀀳 j 􀁾 I
Lane Avg/Max Speed (x of Peak I App Group (veIl) (Illph) Period) I 'L----I I 388 ED LT 41 5 9.2 B.B I I I ......-171 R 11 2 7.2 B.B III JI I I I 􀁾 63 AlI 9.B B.B --------IJH LT 41 8
9.3 B.B R 51 8 12.3 B.B 􀁬􀁂􀀷􀁾 'rr All 10.9 . B.B I I I 21l-I I I I I I NB L 41 ? 1.9 B.B ?7--I I I I i r TR III 8 18.4 B.B I I All 16.7 B.B I I 12& t23 I I 2185 SD L 61 lB 1.9 B.B
1 2 Jj:. 3 L􀁾􀁟4..-! TR H'I 13 13.5 B.B -i l1r2 39 ·:lr2 -4l 􀁾-All !Z.E! f1.E! 2 2 8 2 5 L. & I L -"'="= --, • r Intersect. 13.& lB 2 9 2 2
NETSIM Results ror Case: PROTPM1 Proton Drive/Midway Road Existing Traffic w/new phasing PM Peak Version 3.86 NETSIM Queue Statistics 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥 *Max. 􀁾􀁡􀁸􀀮 Pet. Pet. Of Pet.
Of Cycles Anilllation l1ax. Q Queue Dr TiMe Cycles Where Turner FrMe Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overf lows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App Grp
(vehs) (vehs) ALane Overflow Of Non-Turners Queue ED LT 4 5 8.8 8:81 R 1 2 8.8 B.8 8.8 4:89 IJB LT 4 8 8.8 9:11 R 5 8 IL8 13:18 NB L 4 7 8.8 B.8 8.8 1:25 TR 6 8 8.8 6:45 SB L 6 18 8.8
B.8 8.8 8:49 TR 10 13 0.8 3:38 *These perforillance llIeasures are also shown on surrnary statistics screen
NETSIM Results For Case: PROTPM1 Existing Traffic WI new phasing ProtDn DrivelMidway Road PM Peak Version 3.8& HErsIM EnvironMental Statistics Fue I ConsUMption -------------Gallons------------------
-----Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB B.6 B.8 B.B 12.4 23.5 B.B IJB 1.3 8.8 B.8 14.8 11.5 8.B NB B.6 8.3 B.8 13.4 5.3 8.B SB 9.2 8.3 8.8 11.8 5.1 8.8
All 19.1 8.1 8.8 12.3 5.7 8.8 Auto Pollutant EMissions RTOll (GranslMile-Hour) Maneuvers ----HC------co-----HOX----Cmpleted EB 5B.5 139.1 182.5 18 IJB 185.1 1668.B 218.1 35 NB 413.2
13533.5 15&6.8 8 SB 519.3 15&99.6 1638.4 8 All 339.4 9585.4 1B61.5 Average speed on previous page May he overstated since it was necessary to conhine yellow and all-red intervals
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name DOOLEXAM.HCO
Streets: (N-S) Midway Road (E-W) Boyington/Dooley Major Street Direction .. " NS Length of Time Analyzed. .. 60 (min) Analyst SKT Date of Analysis 12/16/96 Other Information AM Peak
-Existing Conditions Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection =================================:====================================== Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T
R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------No. Lanes 1 3< 0 1 3< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 92 749 35 5 2042 39 0 0 18 6 0 4 PHF .97 .97 .97 .98 .98 .98 .95
.95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RVls (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCEls 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Maneuver Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Critical Gap (tg) 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 Follow-up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows:
(vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment
Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor
TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB 267 1014 1014 1. 00 SB 784 650 650 0.99 WB 2944 21 0.276
1. 00 WB 2905 15 0.27 0.41 0.396 EB 700 612 612 0.97 NB 2081 131 131 0.27 EB 2942 21 0.276 1. 00 EB 2908 15 0.27 0.41 0.416
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation RCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance
Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App -----------------------------------------------------EB R 19 612 > 612 > 6.1
> B WB L 6 6 > > > 10 * F * WB R 4 1014 > > > NB L 95 131 91. 7 F 9.6 SB L 5 650 5.6 B 0.0 Intersection Delay = 6.8 * The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec.
486 IIIIIII , I IIIII I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I Lane HeM 􀁓􀁵􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁹 Results For Case: DOOLCMAM Boyington Dr/Midway Hoad Existing Conditions Existing TraFFi AM Peak Version 3.8& -Lane Grp --App
Delay L Delay L X (sec! 0 (secl 0 -V!-S -v!-C -ve-h)-S -ve-h)-S 8.88 8.88 8.8 A 1&.6 C 􀁾􀀮􀁂􀀱 B.BG 1G.G C Grp EBLT R WB L 8.88 0.82 16.5 C 16.5 C TR 8.88 0.81 16.5 C 􀀸􀁾 f Itlr I
I I I 8-I I I I riB Lper 8.38 2.3 " I I I 18---' I I I i r Lpro *8.83 8.&71 6.2 B I I I TR 8.21 0.32 1.0 A I I I 132 t35 I I I 949 SB Lper 8.88 4.1 " 1 L 2 T 3 ...1I. 􀁾 l--Lpro 8.88
0.8211 1.9 A 􀁾 "'="= al "'11'+ . • TR *0.63 0.97 4.1 A 2 48 113 Z 18 3 2 Int. 8.67 0.10 3.1 AIt TOTAL
3842 I rJ \ IIII 'LI 4 I I I of--8 IJI JI Ii I I I .-Including Pockets WD ND SB 2 4 4 1 􀁾 3 Input Data for Case: DOOLCMAM Dooley Drive/Midway Doad Existing Traffic wI CMAQ IMprovenen
AM Peak Version 3.8& Intersection GeoMetry 1)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 􀁏􀁾􀁴􀁢􀁄􀁵􀁮􀁤 Street 1 2) -Pkt Lanes--Lane Lengths-Left Higllt Full L Pkt R Pkt EB 8 1 B08 288 WB
1 8 688 188 􀀸􀁾 It'f' I I I NB 1 8 1888 158 B-I I I SB 1 8 1888 188 I I 18 ---. I I i r 3)Need to Reyise Channelization? N I I I I 132 t35 4) Lane Widths (Feet) I I 949 Median 2 3 4
5 I) 1 L 2 T 3 , .. II.. ... --EB 12.8 12.8 ==-' 􀁾 3l "11/+ • YB 12.8 12.8 2 48 113 Z IB 3 2 NB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 SB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETSIM SUMnary for Case: DOOLCMAM Dooley DrivelMidway Hoad Existing Traffic WI CMAQ IMproveNen AM Peal< Version 3.8f) Queues Spi II back in 3842 J Per Lane Avg Yorst Lane j9 J􀀵􀁾 I
Lane Avg/Max Speed (x of Peak II App Group (veh) (nph) Period) I 't..-ED LT 81 8 38.3 8.8 I 4 I I I ....--R 81 1 3.5 8.8 8 I 􀁾 I JI All 9.7 8.8 I I I ;-b laiD L 81 1 3.3 8.8 TR 81 1
23.8 8.8 It 'fI All 12.7 8.8 8---J" I I I 8-I I I I I NB L 41 5 2.1 8.8 18--I I i r TR 11 3 23.4 8.8 I I All 132 t35 19.3 8.8 I I I , 949 SB L BI 8 8.B 8.8 1 L . 2 ..IIfI.. 3 oj. • TR
91 13 IB.1 8.8 =-=-' --=-= 31 "111" • All 18.1 B.B 2 48 113 2 18 3 2 Intersect. IB.4
NETSIM Hesults For Case: 􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁌􀁾 Dooley DrivetMidway Hoad Existing Traffic wi CMAQ lMproveMen AM Peak Version 3.86 NETSIM Queue Statistics *Average *Max. *Max. Pct. Pct. Of Pet. Of
Cycles Anilllation Max. Q Queue Of Tirlle Cycles Where Turner Frallle Per Cycle Per That Q With Can} t Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due To Queue Longest App
Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane Overflow Of' Hon-Turners Queue ED LT 8 8 8.8 0:88 n 0 1 0.8 B.0 0.8 2:51 IJB L 8 1 8.8 B.8 0.8 8:36 TR 8 1 8.8 2:32 ND L 4 5 B.8 B.B 8.8 14:18 TR 1 3 8.8 13:11
SD L 8 8 8.8 8.8 0.8 8:88 TB 9 13 0.8 10:22 *These performance lIleasures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
HETSIM Results for Case: 􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁌􀁾 Dooley Drive/Midway Road Existing Traffic WI CnAQ IMproveMen An Peak Version 3.86 HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fue I ConSUMption -------------Gallons-----------
------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses EB B.B B.8 8.B 13.4 8.B 8.8 IJB IL8 B.8 8.8 14.8 8.6 8.0 HB 4.4 B.4 8.8 11.1 5.6 8.0 SB 18.3 8.1 8.8 15.8 7.2
8.8 All 14.8 8.5 8.8 14.8 6.6 8.8 Auto Pollutant EAissions RTOR (GranslMile-Hour) Maneuvers --HC-----aJ--------HO):----CoMpleted EB 2.9 57.7 6.3 2 IJB 1.9 32.5 5.9 1 NB 258.0 9381.1
915.9 1 SB 5Et3.7 14908.4 1142.7 0 All 242.7 7163.3 982.1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name DOOLEXPM.HCO
Streets: (N-S) Midway Road (E-W) Boyington/Dooley Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SKT Date of Analysis 12/16/96
Other Information PM Peak -Existing Conditions Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection 􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽�
�􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------No. Lanes 1 3< 0 1 3< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield
N N Volumes 63 2626 7 7 1278 10 17 0 108 32 0 20 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 CV's (% ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Maneuver Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn
Minor Road Critical Gap (tg) 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 Follow-up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows:
(vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment
Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor
TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB 879 497 497 0.96 SB 2633 66 66 0.89 WB 39885 0.724 1.00
WB 39773 0.72 0.79 0.682 EB 431 837 837 0.86 NB 1288 349 349 0.81 EB 39865 0.724 1.00 EB 39783 0.72 0.79 0.752
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀁾􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪�
�􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪􀀪 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App -------------------------------------------"
----------EB L 18 2 > > > 14 * F * EB R 114 837 > > > WB L 34 2 > > > 3 * F * WB R 21 497 > > > NB L 66 349 12.7 C 0.3 SB L 7 66 61. 0 F 0.3 Intersection Delay 890.9 * The calculated
delay was greater than 999.9 sec.
1278 I 􀁾􀀸􀀱 \ IIJI t.-I ZB I I I 04-8 IJI JI 32 I I I .-Lane HCM SUnNary Results for Case: DOOLCMPM Boyington DrlMidway Road CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁙􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 w/Exist. Traffic PM Peak
Version S.Rb . -Lane Grp --App -Delay L Delay L X (secl 0 (secl 0 Grp Y/S vIc yeh) 􀁾 yeh) 􀁾 8.81 B.8G 14.9 B 12.9 B *8.88 0.24 12.5 B EB LT R WBL 8.83 0.18 15.1 C 15.8 C TR 8.82 8.RG
14.9 B 17---3' 8-NB Lper 8.88 13.9 B lB8-" Lpro 8.84 8.3:J1t 4.1 A TR *8.55 8.9ft 14.1 B SB Lper 8.B8 7.1 B 1 L Lpro 8.88 8.841t 11.3 B -j l TR 8.38 0.53 7.1 B 3 It 'iI I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I , I L ot:=-= •3Z Int. 8.G3 8.G9 11.G BIL TOTAL
Input Data for Case: DOOLCnpn CHAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁄􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 􀁾􀀯􀁅􀁸􀁩􀁳􀁴􀀮 Traffic Boying-ton DrtMidway Road PM Peak Version 3.8& 'L-288 .. 32 L􀁾• 3 2 IIII 􀁾 ( I ItItI I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIII I I IIIII I 􀁾 I 􀁾 I 1278 􀁾􀀸􀀱 \ 17...J 8188-"-Lane Lengths-__----Full L Pkt H Pkt....-----=-B88 2ft8 688 108 1008 158 1888 188 Including-Pockets IJD
ND SD 244 1 3 3 -Pkt Lanes-Left IHg-llt 8 1 1 0 1 0 1 8 Intersection Geonetry l)NuMber of Lanes ED Approach Street 2 Outhound Street 1 2) EB UB NB SB 3)Need to Reyise Channelization?
N 4) Lane Widths (Feet) Median 2 3 4 5 6 ED 12.8 12.8 UB 12.8 12.8 NO 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 SB 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
NETSIM SUMnary for Case: DOOLCMPM Boyington Dr/Midway Road CMAQ IMproveMents w/Exist. Traffic PM Peak Version 3.B& Queues Spi IIback in 1278 I Per Lane Avg Worst Lane j8! 􀀷􀁾 I Lane
AlJg /Max Speed tl. of' Peak I, App Group (veh) (Mph) Period) I ---t.-EB LT 11 2 24.9 B.B I 2B I I I .oQ--8 R 11 3 9.6 8.8 IJI! I All 18.4 8.B I I I ... 32 WB L 81 1 5.6 B.B TR 81 1
16.8 8.8 Itlr All 13.8 B.B 1?...J I I I 8-I I J II NB L 11 2 6.0 8.8 18B ---.. I I i r TR 71 11 18.7 8.B I I All 18.6 B.8 63 t7 I I I I 2626 3B L 11 2 4.0 8.8 1 L 2 Jj:. 3 oj. L TR 41
5 19.2 8.B 38 ·:lr3 2 -""== -31 ! • All 19.B B.8 3 16 3 2 Intersect. 18.7
NETSIM Results for Case: DOOLCMPM Boyington DrlMidway Doad CMAQ 􀁬􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁙􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳 w/Exist. Traffic PM Peak Version 3.BE) NETSIM Queue Statistics 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥 iEMax. *I1ax. Pct.
Pct. Of Pct. Of Cycles 􀁁􀁮􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁄􀁮 Max. Q Queue or Tillie Cycles Where Turner 􀁆􀁲􀁡􀁾 Per Cycle Per That Q With Can't Enter Bay Showing Ln Per Lane Lane Overflows Turn Bay Due
To Queue Longest App Grp (vehs) (yehs) ALane Overflow Of tlon-Turners Queue EB LT 1 2 0.8 0:24 R 1 3 0.8 8.0 0.0 5:03 WB L 0 1 0.8 8.0 0.0 0:01 Tn 0 1 0.8 3:27 NB L 1 2 0.8 8.0 7.7 3:02
Tn 7 11 8.8 6:50 8B L 1 2 0.8 8.0 0.0 4:0ft TIl 4 5 0.8 1:58 *These perfornance neasures are also shown on sunnary statistics screen
NET81M Results for Case: DOOLCMPM CMAQ 􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁳 w/Exist. Traffic Boyington Dr/Midway Road PM Peak Version 3.8& HETSIM EnvironMental Statistics Fue I ConsuMption -------------Gallons----
-------------------Miles Per Gallon---------Autos Trucks Buses Autos Trucks Buses ED B.4 B.8 0.B 19.5 15.6 B.0 WD 8.1 8.8 8.8 16.7 8.8 8.8 ttB 9.4 8.2 8.8 14.4 5.3 8.8 3D 5.5 8.5 8.8
12.& 4.5 8.8 All 15.4 8.7 8.8 13.9 4.8 8.8 HTOR Maneuvers Colllpleted 17888 Auto Pollutant EnissioDS (GranstMile-Hour) ----00--------HOX----585.& &4.4 168.3 24.8 15069.8 1716.7 11112.8
1155.7 7948.9 OG4.4 --HC---22.8 18.4 521.8 31B.l . 254.0 EB WD N:B 3D All
APPENDIX C Cost Estimates and Quantities
CMAQ Project 12 Budget 9.71%00 *2.17%00 2.40% 8.52%00 5.5%00 Amount Schematic 0.0% On 0,0% On County 0.0010 On 0.0010 On Available for Constr. TxOOT Constr. Budget TxDOT Admin. TXDOT
TxDOT Constrl Cost. Constrl Amount Amount PS&E ROW Constr. TIP Constr. ROW Admin. Estimate Admn. fl· Trinity Mils at $ 750,lXXl $ 111,787 $ 248,184 $ 12,129 $ 18,lXXl $ · $ · $ 359,9Xl
$ 558,937 $ 54,608 $ (253,645) Mdway Spring Valley at $ l,750,lXXl $ 88,679 $ 156,000 $ 9,622 $ 42.lXXl $ $ · $ 1,453.640 $ 443,394 $ 43,320 $ 966,926 Mdway Keller Springs at $ 530,lXXl
$ 58,573 $ 156,000 $ 6,355 $ 12,720 $ · $ · $ 296,292 $ 292,865 $ 28,613 $ (25,186) Mclway Beltway at $ 55,lXXl $ 5,957 $ 12,204 $ 646 $ 1,320 $ -$ -$ 34,873 $ 29.785 $ 2.910 $ 2,178
Mdway Urdberg at $ l05,lXXl $ 11,716 $ 13,932 $ 1,271 $ 2,520 $ -$ -$ 75,560 $ 58,582 $ 5,723 $ 11,255 Mdway rvtE\\eIl at $ 115,lXXl $ 18,863 $ 27,lXXl $ 2,047 $ 2.760 $ -$ -$ 64,330
$ 94,316 $ 9,215 $ (39,201) Mdway Proton at $ 115,lXXl $ 20,678 $ 33,372 $ 2,244 $ 2,760 $ · $ -$ 55,946 $ 103,391 $ 10,101 $ (57,546) Mdway BelrreadelSojoum $ 22O,lXXl $ 33,578 $ 68,256
$ 3,643 $ 5,280 $ -$ · $ 109.243 $ 167,888 $ 16,403 $ (75,047) atMclway BoyingtonlOJoley $ 155,lXXl $ 11,096 $ 23,976 $ 1,204 $ 3,720 $ · $ -$ 115,004 $ 55,479 $ 5,420 $ 54,105 atMdway
Totals: , $ 3,795,lXXl $ '&IJ,927 '$ 739,044 $ 39,161 $ 91.080 $ C-l $ -$ 2,564,788 $ 1.804,637 $ 176.313 $ 563,838
TXDOT Item Description Item # I. Demolition & Construction Mobilization LS $5,000.00 1 $ 5,000 Remove Existing Sidewalk M"2 $3.25 271 $ 881 1040513 Remove Existing Curb and gutter M
$7.35 616 $ 4,528 Landscaping (Irrg., Trees. Sod) LS $2,300.00 1 $ 2,300 Remove & Replace Mast Arm Pole EA $4.500.00 8 $ 36,000 50305003 Adjust Manhole EA $500.00 2 $ 1,000 Relocate
Controller Cabinet EA $2,500.00 5 $ 12,500 Sawcut Existing Pavement M $5.95 1520 $ 9,044 53630521 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA $1,000.00 2 $ 2,000 Remove & Replace Curb Inlet EA $3,000.00
4 $ 12,000 3600503 8" Reinf. Cone. Pavement (Incl. base matI.) M"2 $40.00 3640 $ 145,600 5290504 6" Reinf. Cone. Curb & Gutter M $28.00 585 $ 16,380 4" Reinf. Cone. Sidewalk M"2 $30.00
271 $ 8,130 ADA Ramp EA $500.00 6 $ 3,000 Pavement Markings and Signage LS $5,000.00 1 $ 5,000 Traffic Control LS $3.000.00 1 $ 3,000 Laydown Curb M $40.00 64 $ 2,560 Remove Existing
Pavement M"2 $4.20 2703 $ 11,353 Relocate Water Box EA $750.00 1 $ 750 53440505 Relocate Traffic Sign EA $300.00 5 $ 1,500 6445006 Relocate Power Pole EA $1,800.00 8 $ 14,400 Relocate
Light Pole EA $2,000.00 5 $ 10,000 Relocate Electric Meter EA $2,200.00 1 $ 2,200 Relocate Large Mobil Sign EA $1,500.00 1 $ 1,500 Relocate Electric Box EA $750.00 1 $ 750 Concrete Driveway
M"2 $23.41 206 $ 4,822 Concrete Median M"2 $30.00 405 $ 12,150 Build Retaining Wall M"2 $300.00 137.16 $ 41,148 Subtotal Demolition and Construction $ 369,495 Demolition and Construction
Contingency (20%) $ 73,899 Total Demolition & Construction $443,394 II. Right-of-way AcqUisition Residential M"2 $54.00 0 $ CommerciaVRetail M"2 $108.00 1445 $156.060 Total R.O.W. Acquistion
$156.060 III. Design (PS&E) (20%) $ 88.679 C-3
􀀧􀁾􀁲􀀺􀀺 TXDOT Item Description Item # I. Demolition & Construction Mobilization LS $5,000.00 1 $ 5,000 Remove Existing Curb and gutter M $7.35 165 $ 1,213 Landscaping (Irrg., Trees.
Sod) LS $2,300.00 1 $ 2,300 Replace Traffic Signal System EA $80,000.00 1 $ 80,000 50305003 Sawcut Existing Pavement M $5.95 897 $ 5,337 53630521 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA $1,000.00 3
$ 3,000 Remove & Replace Curb Inlet EA $3.000.00 1 $ 3,000 3600503 8" Reinf. Conc. Pavement (Incl. base matI.) MI\2 $40.00 2600 $104,000 5290504 6" Reinf. Conc. Curb & Gutter M $28.00
589 $ 16,492 Pavement Markings and Signage LS $5,000.00 1 $ 5,000 Traffic Control LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Laydown Curb M $40.00 10 $ 400 Remove Existing Pavement M"2 $4.20 660 $ 2,772
Relocate Traffic Sign EA .$300.00 11 $ 3,300 6445006 Relocate Power Pole EA $1,800.00 2 $ 3,600 Relocate Electric Box EA $750.00 1 $ 750 Concrete Median MI\2 $30.00 156 $ 4,680 Install
Traffic Buttons EA $15.00 14 $ 210 Subtotal Demolition and Construction $244,054 Demolition and Construction Contingency (20%) $ 48,811 Total Demolition & Construction $ 292,865 II.
Right-of-way Acquisition Residential M"2 $54.00 0 $ Commercial/Retail MI\2 $108.00 1445 $156,060 Total R.O.W. Acquistion $ 156,060 II. Design (P5&E) (20%) $ 58,573 C-4
lXOOT Item Description Item # I. Demolition & Construction Mobilization LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Remove Existing Sidewalk MII.2 $3.25 46 $ 150 1040513 Remove Existing Curb and gutter M
$7.35 91 $ 669 Landscaping (Irrg., Trees, Sod) LS $800.00 1 $ 800 Sawcut Existing Pavement M $5.95 106 $ 631 53630521 8" Reinf. Cone. Pavement (Inel. base matI.) MII.2 $40.00 221 $ 8,840
5290504 6" Reinf. Cone. Curb & Gutter M $28.00 85 $ 2,380 4" Reinf. Cone. Sidewalk MII.2 $30.00 46 $ 1,380 Pavement Markings and Signage LS $1,000.00 1 $ 1,000 Traffic Control LS $800.00
1 $ 800 Remove Existing Pavement MII.2 $4.20 517 $ 2,171 Relocate Water Valve EA $600.00 2 $ 1,200 50375004 Relocate Power Pole EA $1,800.00 1 $ 1,800 Subtotal Demolition and Construction
$ 24,820 Demolition and Construction Contingency (20%) $ 4,964 Total Demolition & Construction $ 29,785 II. Right-of-way Acquisition 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁡􀁬 MI\2 $54.00 0 $ Commerdal/Retail
MII.2 $108.00 113 $ 12,204 Total R.O.W. Acquistion $ 12,204 III. Design (PS&E) (20%) $ 5,957 C-5
TXDOT Item Description Item # I. Demolition & Construction Mobilization LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Remove Existing Curb and gutter M $7.35 123 $ 904 Landscaping (Irrg., Trees, Sod) LS $1,500.00
1 $ 1,500 Remove and Replace Mast Arm and Pole EA $4,500.00 1 $ 4,500 Relocate Controller Cabinet EA $2,500.00 3 $ 7,500 50305003 Sawcut Existing Pavement M $5.95 278 $ 1,654 53630521
Relocate Fire Hydrant EA $1.000.00 1 $ 1,000 Remove & Replace Curb Inlet EA $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 3600503 8" Reinf. Cone. Pavement (lncl. base matI.) MI\2 $40.00 277 $ 11,080 5290504 6"
Reinf. Cone. Curb & Gutter M $28.00 111 $ 3,108 Pavement Markings and Signage LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Traffic Control LS $2,000.00 1 $ 2,000 Laydown Curb M $40.00 5 $ 200 Remove Existing
Pavement MI\2 $4.20 160 $ 672 Relocate Traffic Sign EA $300.00 1 $ 300 6445006 Relocate Power Pole EA $1,800.00 3 $ 5,400 Subtotal Demolition and Construction $ 48,818 Demolition and
Construction Contingency (20%) $ 9,764 Total Demolition & Construction $ 58,582 II. Right-of-way Acquisition Residential MI\2 $54.00 0 $ Commercial/Retail MI\2 $108.00 129 $ 13,932 Total
R.O.W. Acquistion $ 13,932 III. Design (PS&E) (20%) $ 11,716 C-G
Item Description Amount I. Demolition & Construction Mobilization LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Remove Existing Sidewalk M"2 $3.25 140 $ 455 Remove Existing Curb and gutter M $7.35 268 $ 1,970
Landscaping (frrg., Trees, Sod) LS $1,200.00 1 $ 1,200 Remove & Replace Mast Arm Pole EA $4,500.00 2 $ 9,000 Relocate Controller Cabinet EA $2,500.00 4 $ 10,000 Adjust Manhole EA $500.00
2 $ 1,000 Sawcut Existing Pavement M $5.95 286 $ 1,702 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA $1,000.00 1 $ 1,000 Remove & Replace Curb Inlet EA $3,000.00 2 $ 6,000 8" Reinf. Cone. Pavement (Incl.
base matI.) M"2 $40.00 640 $ 25,600 6" Reinf. Cone. Curb & Gutter M $28.00 253 $ 7,084 4" Reinf. Cone. Sidewalk M"2 $30.00 140 $ 4,200 ADA Ramp EA $500.00 1 $ 500 Pavement Markings and
Signage LS $2,500.00 1 $ 2,500 Traffic Control LS $1,800.00 1 $ 1,800 Laydown Curb M $40.00 1 $ 40 Remove Existing Pavement M"2 $4.20 784 $ 3,293 Relocate Water Meter EA $750.00 1 $
750 Relocate Water Valve EA $600.00 2 $ 1,200 Relocate Traffic Sign EA $300.00 1 $ 300 Concrete Driveway M"2 $23.41 37 $ 866 Remove & Replace Harvey Sign and Light LS $1,200.00 1 $ 1,200
Concrete Median M"2 $30.00 50 $ 1,500 Subtotal Demolition and Construction $ 86,159 Demolition and Construction Contingency (20%) $ 17,232 Total Demolition & Construction $ 103,391 II.
Right-of-way Acquisition Residential M"2 $54.00 0 $ Commercial/Retail M"2 $108.00 309 $ 33,372 Total R.O.W. Acquistion $ 33,372 II. Design (PS&E) (20%) $ 20,678 C-8
·..􀂷􀂷􀀡􀀡􀁦􀁩􀀺􀁊􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀀻􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀭􀀷􀀱􀁴􀁬􀀦􀀷􀀧􀀮􀀺􀂷􀀬􀂷 TXOOT Item Description Quantity Amount Item # I. Demolition & Construction Mobilization LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Remove
Existing Curb and gutter M $7.35 146 $ 1,073 Landscaping (Irrg., Trees, Sod) LS $1,600.00 1 $ 1,600 Sawcut Existing Pavement M $5.95 166 $ 988 53630521Remove & Replace Curb Inlet EA $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 3600503 4" Reinf. Conc. Median Pavement MI\2 $20.00 532 $ 10,640 8" Reinf. Cone. Pavement (Incl. base mati.) MI\2 $40.00 268 $ 10,720
5290504 6" Reinf. Conc. Curb & Gutter M $28.00 139 $ 3,892 Pavement Markings and Signage LS $3,000.00 1 $ 3,000 Traffic Control LS $2,000.00 1 $ 2,000 Laydown Curb M $40.00 20 $ 800
Remove Existing Pavement MI\2 $4.20 100 $ 420 Relocate Traffic Sign EA $300.00 3 $ 900 6445006 Relocate Power Pole EA $1,800.00 1 $ 1,800 Install Traffic Buttons EA $15.00 60 $ 900 Concrete
Median MI\2 $30.00 50 $ 1,500 Subtotal Demolition and Construction $ 46,233 Demolition and Construction Contingency (20%) $ 9,247 Total Demolition & Construction $ 55,479 II. Right-of-way
AcqUisition Residential MI\2 $54.00 0 $ Commercial/Retail MI\2 $108.00 222 $ 23,976 Total RO.W. Acquistion $ 23,976 III. Design (PS&E) (20%) $ 11,096 C-10